ML17172A423

Memorandum (Identifying Questions for Oral Argument)

ML17172A423
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/21/2017
From:	Ronald Spritzer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-443 LA-2, ASLBP-17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 53900
Download: ML17172A423 (5)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Ronald M. Spritzer, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. Sekazi Mtingwa In the Matter of NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit One)

Docket No. 50-443-LA2 ASLBP No. 17-953-02-LA-BD01 June 21, 2017 MEMORANDUM (Identifying Questions for Oral Argument)

Before the Board is the petition of the C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.

(C-10) challenging a license amendment request submitted by NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC (NextEra) for Seabrook Station, Unit 1, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire. By order dated June 5, 2017, the Board scheduled argument on standing and contention admissibility on Thursday, June 29, 2017, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EDT.1 The Board has identified the following questions to assist the participants in preparing for oral argument. The list is not intended to be exclusive; the Board may ask questions on other issues, and the participants may discuss issues other than those listed that are relevant to petitioners standing or the admissibility of its contentions.

1 Licensing Board Order (Scheduling Oral Argument and Providing Instructions) (June 5, 2017) at 1 (unpublished).

Standing

1. Given the allegations in the Petition regarding concrete degradation and its effects on the Seabrook Plant structures, how would an organization with an office located within 10 miles of the Plant not have standing under the NRCs proximity presumption?

2. If the Board may consider all of the facts related to standing alleged by C-10, including the additional facts alleged in its Reply, is it still the position of the Staff or NextEra that C-10 lacks standing?

3. Several Commission decisions allow a petitioner to provide additional facts and/or argument related to standing in its reply. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. and South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-10-1, 71 NRC 1, 7 (2010); PPL Bell Bend, LLC (Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-10-7, 71 NRC 133, 139-40 (2010). Why are those Commission decisions not controlling in this case?

Contention Admissibility

1. Explain how the MPR/FSEL Large-Scale Test Program (LSTP) results bound -- or fail to bound -- the Seabrook Unit 1 concrete expansion?

2. What would satisfy C-10 or the Staff that the limits derived from the LSTP results are bounding of the Seabrook Unit 1 concrete?

3. How is using the LSTP results to calibrate ACI 318-71 and ASME Code equations, and then using those equations to predict Unit 1 concrete performance, not the same as assuming that the LSTP test samples are representative of the Unit 1 plant structures?

4. C-10 states that the monitoring program involving visual inspections, crack width indexing, and extensometer deployment proposed in the LAR must be replaced by a program of in-situ sampling of the Seabrook concrete. Can C-10 describe such an in-situ sampling program?

5. What is the controlling regulatory standard that the Staff will apply to approve the LAR? What are the findings that the Staff must make to grant the LAR? Are those findings set forth in specific NRC regulations, guidance, or other documents?

6. NextEra and C-10 should explain what they mean by the term Petrographic Analysis and how it relates to the ASR monitoring program at Seabrook.

7. C-10 should explain its statement that NextEra plans to discontinue core sample testing or is attempting to avoid such testing, and NextEra should explain why C-10s statement is incorrect.

8. Contention D appears to provide specific reasons for its claim that the test specimens are not representative of the Seabrook structures. NextEra should explain its reasons for arguing that the contention is "devoid of support." NextEra Ans. at 41-42.

9. Why does the Staff think Contention D cannot stand alone?

10. What specific parts of Contentions A-D and G-H is the Staff incorporating into its reformulated contention? Is it necessary to include all of those specific parts for the reformulated contention to be admissible?

11. C-10 made its arguments based on non-proprietary versions of NextEras documents. Has C-10 requested access to the proprietary versions of those documents, and, if so, what is the status of its request?

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ronald M. Spritzer, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland June 21, 2017

/RA/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC

)

Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)

)

)

(License Amendment)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM (Identifying Questions for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ronald M. Spritzer, Chair Administrative Judge ronald.spritzer@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros Administrative Judge nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Dr. Sekazi K. Mtingwa Administrative Judge sezaki.mtingwa@nrc.gov Kimberly C. Hsu, Esq.

Law Clerk kimberly.hsu@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 n Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine Scott, Esq.

Catherine.Scott@nrc.gov Beth Mizuno, Esq.

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Anita Ghosh, Esq.

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

brian.harris@nrc.gov Jeremy Wachutka, Esq.

jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov John Tibbetts - Paralegal John.Tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center: Members of this office have received a copy of this filing by EIE service.

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1) - Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 MEMORANDUM (Identifying Questions for Oral Argument) 2 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #220 Washington, DC 20004 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.

steven.hamrick@fpl.com NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 William Blair, Esq.

william.blair@fpl.com NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com C-10 Research & Education Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newburyport, Mass. 01950 Natalie Hildt Treat natalie@c-10.org

[Original signed by Clara Sola ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of June, 2017