ML20261H604

C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-09

ML20261H604
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/17/2020
From:	Curran D C-10 Research & Education Foundation, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-443 LA-2, ASLBP-17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 55793
Download: ML20261H604 (5)

Text

September 17, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )

_____________________________________)

C-10 RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF LBP-20-09 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(e), C-10 Research and Education Foundation (C-10) hereby requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to grant it leave to file a reply to NextEras Answer Opposing C-10s Motion for Leave and Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-9 (Sept. 10, 2020) (NextEra Answer I), NextEras Answer Opposing C-10s Motion to Reopen the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony (Sept. 10, 2020)

(NextEra Answer II) and NRC Staffs Answer to C-10s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and to Reopen the Record (Sept. 10, 2020) (NRC Staff Answer). C-10 also requests leave to file the attached Ex. INT053, Rebuttal Supplemental Testimony of Victor E. Saouma, Ph.D Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 (Sept. 17, 2020) (Saouma Rebuttal Supp. Test.),

which responds to technical arguments in the Affidavit of Angela Buford, Bryce Lehman, Jacob Philip, and George Thomas in Response to C-10s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and to Reopen the Record (Sept. 10, 2020) (Staff Aff.). NextEra Answer I, NextEra Answer II, NRC Staff Answer, and Staff. Aff. were filed in response to C-10s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 (Aug. 31, 2020) (Motion for Partial Reconsideration and

Motion to Re-Open the Record), and the supporting Supplemental Testimony of Victor E.

Saouma, Ph.D Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 (Aug. 28, 2020) (Saouma Supp.

Test.).

II. DISCUSSION C-10 respectfully submits that a reply is warranted here by compelling circumstances, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). These circumstances are as follows:

(a) The NRC Staff agrees that reconsideration of LBP-20-09 is appropriate, responds to Dr.

Saoumas Supplemental Testimony, and proposes changes of its own to the license conditions imposed by the ASLB in LBP-20-09. The Staff also implicitly concedes the safety significance of the modification to which it agrees, by stating that LBP-20-09 would be invalid without the change. Staff Answer at 2. And the Staff cites guidance which suggests it is appropriate to allow an opportunity to comment on new license conditions before they are imposed. Staff Aff., A.6 at 4-5. These multiple concessions by the Staff demonstrate that the new license conditions are important and safety-significant measures, and that C-10s proposed changes should be considered.

(b) C-10s proposed changes are explained supported by extensive expert testimony by Dr.

Saouma including his initial proposal in INT052 and his response to criticisms by the Staff and NextEra in INT053. His testimony demonstrates that proposed changes to the license conditions are necessary for clarity and reliability. His Rebuttal Supplemental Testimony (Ex. INT053) also responds to criticisms by the NRC Staff and NextEra. Dr.

Saouma has demonstrated his extremely high level of expertise in this proceeding, and his commitment to thoroughly reviewing the record documents. He does not seek to overturn the ASLBs decision, but to ensure its effectiveness and internal consistency. As 2

he explains, his views are not merely preferences, but his considered expert opinion on what is needed to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the license conditions. In order to make a meaningful record, and in fairness to C-10, his expert opinion should be considered.

(c) Dr. Saouma is highly qualified to testify regarding the effectiveness of the ASLBs license conditions to monitor and detect the progression of Alkali-silica reaction (ASR), including establishing clarity for purposes of avoiding confusion or misinterpretation of data. In contrast, while the NRC Staff has submitted an affidavit by NRC Staff members, they do not claim expertise with respect to ASR. Instead, their claimed expertise relates only to the NRC licensing and review process. And NextEra does not offer any expert testimony or affidavit, but rather comments by its attorneys.

Thus, the Staffs and NextEras attempts to diminish the significance of Dr. Saoumas proposed changes should not be accepted without considering additional testimony by Dr.

Saouma, as presented in INT053.

(d) NextEras and the Staffs legal arguments against consideration of C-10s Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Re-open are inconsistent with LBP-20-09 and NRC Staff guidance. C-10 could not have anticipated these inconsistent arguments, and therefore in fairness should be allowed to respond to them.

(e) For the next thirty years, the license conditions will constitute the primary tool for maintaining NextEras accountability for public safety with respect to ASR. Dr.

Saoumas proposed changes to the license conditions are intended to provide a needed degree of clarity and reliability, to ensure that the license conditions will not be subject to misinterpretation. This has nothing to do with NextEras integrity or competence, but 3

with general principles of sound regulation. The proposed changes are also needed to maintain consistency with the conceptual basis for LBP-20-09. Moreover, the ASLB did not present the changes to C-10 or any other party until August 21, 2020. Given the importance of the license conditions to protection of public health and safety, and in light of the ASLBs interest in basing its decision on a complete and meaningful record, C-10 should be permitted to reply to NextEras and the Staffs Answers.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should permit C-10 to reply to the Answers filed by NextEra and the NRC Staff, and to submit Ex. INT053.

Respectfully submitted,

__/signed electronically by/___

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 240-393-9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com September 17, 2020 4

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I certify that on September 16, 2020, I consulted counsel for NextEra and the NRC Staff in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion. Counsel for NextEra and the Staff stated that they would oppose this motion.

___[Signed electronically by]__

Diane Curran 5