ML24043A036: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  
)
)
In the Matter of )
In the Matter of  
Virginia Electric Power Co. ) Docket Nos. 50 -338/339 SLR North Anna Power Station Units 1 & 2 ) February 12, 2024
)
Virginia Electric Power Co.  
) Docket Nos. 50-338/339 SLR North Anna Power Station Units 1 & 2  
)
February 12, 2024
___________________________________ )
___________________________________ )
 
NOTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP-24-01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP-24-01 Petitioners Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club hereby call to the attention of the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the relevance to this subsequent license renewal (SLR) proceeding of LBP-24-01, a recent decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in the SLR proceeding for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.1 In LBP-24-01, the ASLB certified the following question to the Commission:
N OTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP -24 -01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP -24 -01
Should the NRC Staff have waited to issue the notice of opportunity for hearing until it completed the Final SEIS [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], and if so, how does that impact the conduct of this proceeding?2 As recognized by the ASLB, the question raised in LBP-24-01 is relevant to this proceeding.3 The Commissions disposition of LBP-24-01 may moot or otherwise affect Petitioners pending motion to the Commissioners to withdraw the hearing notice for this proceeding.4 1 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), LBP-24-01 (slip op.) (Jan. 31, 2024) (LBP-24-01).
 
2 Id., slip op. at 4 (citing Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and e), CLI-22-3, 95 N.R.C. 40 (2022) (CLI-22-03)).
Petitioners Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club hereby call to the attention of the
 
Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the relevance to this
 
subsequent license renewal (SLR) proceeding of LBP -24 -01, a recent decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in the SLR proceeding for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.1
 
In LBP -24 -01, the ASLB certified the following question to the Commission:
 
Should the NRC Staff have waited to issue the notice of opportunity for hearing until it completed the Final SEIS [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], and if so, how does that impact the conduct of this proceeding ? 2
 
As recognized by the ASLB, the question raised in LBP -24 -01 is relevant to this proceeding. 3
 
The Commission s disposition of LBP -24 -01 may moot or otherwise affec t Petitioners pending motion to the Commissioners to withdraw the hearing notice for this proceeding.4
 
1 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), LBP -24 -01 (slip op. ) (Jan. 31, 2024) (LBP -24 -01).
2 Id., slip op. at 4 (citing Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and e), CLI -22 -3, 95 N.R.C. 40 (2022) (CLI -22 -03)).
 
3 Id., slip op. at 6 and n.30.
3 Id., slip op. at 6 and n.30.
4 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice (filed Jan.
4 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice (filed Jan.
18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024) (Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice). The hearing notice was issued on January 8, 2024 at 89 Fed. Reg. 960.
18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024) (Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice). The hearing notice was issued on January 8, 2024 at 89 Fed. Reg. 960.
Petitioners also note that on February 1, 2024, they submitted a conditional motion to extend the March 8, 2024 deadline in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notic e. See Conditional Motion b y Beyond Nuclear a nd Sierra Club for Extension of Time to Petitioners also ask the Commissioners to exercise their supervisory authority to ensure
Petitioners also note that on February 1, 2024, they submitted a conditional motion to extend the March 8, 2024 deadline in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice. See Conditional Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Extension of Time to  
 
the fairness and efficiency of this proceeding by immediately suspend ing the March 8, 2024
 
deadline for hearing requests pending resolution of the question certified by the ASLB in LBP -
 
24 -01. A temporary suspension of this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine
 
whether submission of hearing r eques ts is necessary at this time, potentially saving the parties
 
and the ASLB a wasted effort. 5
 
To the extent the Commission s stan dard for injunctive rel ief is applicable here,
 
Petitioners respectfully su bmit that these circumstan ces satisfy the criteria for a stay in 10 C.F.R.


2 Petitioners also ask the Commissioners to exercise their supervisory authority to ensure the fairness and efficiency of this proceeding by immediately suspending the March 8, 2024 deadline for hearing requests pending resolution of the question certified by the ASLB in LBP-24-01. A temporary suspension of this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine whether submission of hearing requests is necessary at this time, potentially saving the parties and the ASLB a wasted effort.5 To the extent the Commissions standard for injunctive relief is applicable here, Petitioners respectfully submit that these circumstances satisfy the criteria for a stay in 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.342 as follows:
§ 2.342 as follows:
: 1) Petitioners have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that
: 1) Petitioners have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that issuance of the January 8, 2024 hearing notice was premature. As Petitioners contended in their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice and as recognized by the ASLB in LBP 01, the clear direction of CLI-22-03 is that publication of hearing notices in the four SLR proceedings covered by the decision should await completion of the environmental Submit Hearing Request. Petitioners continue to advance that conditional request in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw or fails to provide a new 60-day notice as requested below.
5 See, e.g., Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. et al. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-99-30, 50 N.R.C. 333, 342-43 (1999) (temporarily suspending hearing at early stage of license transfer proceeding to allow potential intervenors to engage in independent contract negotiations that could moot their dispute before the NRC in the immediate future.).


issuance of the January 8, 2024 hearing notice was premature. As Petitioners contended
3 review process, i.e., publication of the final EIS.6 While that timing is different from the NRCs established practice, the plain language of CLI-22-03 is unequivocal.7
 
: 2) Failure to immediately suspend the hearing notice will cause irreparable harm to Petitioners by requiring them to invest significant time and resources to prepare a hearing request that may be unnecessary, thereby leaving their time and resources depleted at a future point when they may be called upon to submit a hearing request based on the Final EIS. Preparation of a hearing request also takes time away from preparation of Petitioners comments on the Draft EIS, which are due February 22, 2024.8 While economic expenditures are not generally recognized as irreparable harm, it is indisputable that nonprofit organizations composed of ordinary citizens lack the same scale of staffing and financial resources as the federal government and the nuclear industry. If a hearing opportunity is to be meaningful, as intended by the NRC, prospective intervenors should not be forced to squander their limited resources at a premature stage.9 Further, requiring Petitioners to go ahead with a hearing request before 6 LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6 and n. 30. See also Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice at 3-4 (filed Jan. 18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024)
in their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice and as recognized by the ASLB in LBP -24 -
(Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice) (The Commissions repeated use of the word complete to describe the status of the environmental review demonstrates unequivocally that the Commission did not intend the hearing process for these particular site-specific environmental reviews to begin until after publication of a final EIS.).
 
7 LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6. LBP-24-01 thereby implicitly rejects Virginia Electric Power Companys (VEPCOs) argument in this proceeding that the term complete is ambiguous.
01, the clear direction of CLI -22 -03 is that publication of hearing notices in the four
Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclears and Sierra Clubs Motion for Withdrawal of Hearing Notice at 5 (Jan. 29, 2024). And it implicitly rejects the Staffs argument that the term complete applies to completion of the Draft EIS. NRC Staffs Answer to Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Clubs Motion for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice at 6 (Jan. 29, 2024).
 
SLR proceedings covered by the decision should await completion of the environmental
 
Submit Hearing Request. Petitioners continue to advance that conditional r equest in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw or fails to provide a new 60 -day notice as requested below.
5 See, e.g., Niagra Mo hawk Power Corp. et al. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI -99 -30, 5 0 N.R.C. 333, 342 -43 (1999) (temporarily suspending hearing at early stage of license transfer proceeding to allow potential intervenors to engage in inde pendent contract negotiations that could m oot the ir dispute before the NRC in the immediate future. ).
 
2
 
review process, i.e., publication of the final EIS. 6 While that timing is different from the
 
NRCs established practice, the plain language of CLI -22 -03 is unequivocal. 7
: 2) F ailure to immediately suspend the hearing notice will cause irreparable harm to
 
Petitioners by requiring them to invest significant time and resources to prepare a hearing
 
request that may be unnecessary, thereby leaving th eir time and resources depleted at a
 
future point when they may be called upon to submit a hearing request based on the Final
 
EIS. P reparation of a hearing requ est also takes time away from preparation of
 
Petitioners comments on the Draft EIS, which are due February 22, 2024. 8
 
While economic expenditures are not generally recognized as irreparable harm, it
 
is indisputable that nonprofit organizations composed of ordinary citizens lack the same
 
scale of staffing and financial resources as the federal government and the nuclear
 
industry. If a hearing opportunity is to be meaningful, as intended by the NRC,
 
p rospective intervenors should not be forced to squander their limited resources at a premature stage. 9 Further, requiring Petitioners to go ahead with a hearing request before
 
6 LBP -24 -01, slip op. at 6 and n. 30. See also Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice at 3 -4 (filed Jan. 18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024)
(Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice) (The Commissions repeated use of the word complete to describe the status of th e environmental review demonstrates unequivocally that the Commission did not intend the hearing process for these particular site -specific environmental reviews to begin until after publication of a final EIS.).
7 LBP -24 -01, slip op. at 6. LBP -24 -01 thereby implicitly rejects Virginia Electric Power Company s (VEPCO s ) argu ment in this proceeding that the term complete is ambiguous.
Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclears and Sierra Clubs Motion for Withdrawal of Hearing Notice at 5 (Jan. 29, 2024). And it implicitly rejects the Staffs argument that the term complete applies to completion of the Draft EIS. NRC Staffs Answer to Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Clubs Mot ion for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice at 6 (Jan. 29, 2024).
8 89 Fed. Reg. 960.
8 89 Fed. Reg. 960.
9 See NRC webpage on Public Participation, https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/public-participation.html:


9 See NRC webpage on Public Participation, https://www.nrc.gov/public -involve/open/public -
4 resolving the inconsistency between the Secretarys hearing notice and the Commissions decision in CLI-22-03 causes irreparable harm to the NRCs credibility for conducting a fair, efficient and orderly hearing process.10
participation.html :
: 3) No party will be harmed by a suspension of the deadline for submitting hearing requests, because VEPCO submitted its SLR request more than a decade remains before expiration of the operating licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2.11 And the public interest in a fair and meaningful adjudicatory proceeding will be served by resolving the inconsistency between CLI-22-03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice before Petitioners are required to meet the deadline.
 
In order for the relief from the impending deadline to be meaningful, Petitioners request the Commissioners to suspend the March 8, 2024 deadline for hearing requests immediately.
3
Finally, as a matter of fairness to Petitioners and the general public, if the Commission decides to resolve the inconsistency between CLI-22-03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice by retaining the Secretarys requirement to submit hearing requests based on the Draft EIS, it The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers public involvement in, and information about, our activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry. We recognize the public's interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and provide opportunities for citizens to be heard. For that reason, consistent with The NRC Approach to Open Government, the agency is committed to providing opportunities for the public to participate meaningfully in the NRC's decisionmaking process.
 
10 See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 N.R.C. 18, 19 (1998) (calling for discipline in the hearing process and a prompt yet fair resolution of contested issues). See also LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6 (resolution of the question posed by the ASLB would materially advance this disposition of this proceeding, as well as other subsequent license renewal proceedings.).
resolving the inconsistency between the Secretary s hearing notice and the Commission s
11 85 Fed. Reg. 65,438 (Oct. 15, 2020) (citing operating license expiration dates of 2038 for North Anna Unit 1 and 2040 for North Anna Unit 2).  
 
decision in CLI -22 -03 c auses irreparable harm to the NRCs credibility for conducting a
 
fair, efficient and orderly hearing process.10
: 3) N o party will be harmed by a suspension of the deadline for submitting hearing requests,
 
because VEPCO submitted its SLR request more than a decade remains before ex p iration
 
of the operating licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2. 11 And the public interest in a fair
 
and meaningful adjudicatory proceeding will be served by resolving the inconsistency
 
between CLI -22 -03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice before Petitioners are required
 
to meet the deadline.
 
In order for the relief from the impending deadline to be meaningful, Petitioners request the
 
Commissioners to suspend the March 8, 2024 deadline for hearing requests immediately.
 
F inally, as a matter of fairness to Petitioners and the general public, if the Commission
 
decides to r esolve the inconsistency between CLI -22 -03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice
 
by retaining the Secretarys requirement to submit hearing requests based on the Draft EIS, it
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers public involvement in, and information about, our activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry. We recognize the public's interest in the proper regulation of nucle ar activities and provide opportunities for citizens to be heard. For that reason, consistent with The NRC Approach to Open Government, the agency is committed to providing opportunities for the public to participate meaningfully in the NRC's decisionmakin g process.
 
10 See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI -98 -12, 48 N.R.C. 18, 19 (1998) (calling for discipline in the hearing process and a prompt yet fair resolution of contested issues). See also LBP -24 -01, slip op. at 6 (resolution of the question posed by the ASLB would materially advance this disposition of this proceeding, as well as other subsequent license renewal proceedings. ).
 
11 85 Fed. Reg. 65,438 (Oct. 15, 2020) (citing operating license expiration dates of 2038 for North Anna Unit 1 and 2040 for North Anna Unit 2).
 
4
 
should re -issue the hearing notice to explain its decision to change the directive in CLI -2 2 -03.
And it should provide a new 60 -day period for the submission of hearing requests.12
 
Respectfully submitted,


5 should re-issue the hearing notice to explain its decision to change the directive in CLI-22-03.
And it should provide a new 60-day period for the submission of hearing requests.12 Respectfully submitted,
___/signed electronically by/__
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
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
1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 240-393-9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com February 12, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)
 
I certify that on February 8, 2024, I contacted counsel for VEPCO and the NRC Staff in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Counsel for VEPCO and the Staff stated that they oppose the motion to suspend the hearing deadline and reserve the right to respond to it.
February 12, 2024
 
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)
 
I certify that on February 8, 2024, I contacted counsel for VEPCO and the NRC Staff in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Counsel for VEPCO and the Staff stated that they oppose the motion to suspend the hearing deadline and reserve the right t o respond to it.
 
___/signed electronically by/__
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran
Diane Curran 12 See, e.g., Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 08, 55 N.R.C.222, 225 (1980) (holding that in the event a stayed ASLB proceeding were to resume, the Board should reset its filing and hearing schedule, with due regard for fairness to all parties.).  
 
12 See, e.g., Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI -02 -
08, 55 N.R.C.222, 225 (1980) (holding that in the event a stayed ASLB proceeding were to resume, the Board should reset its filing and hearing schedule, with due regard for fairness to all parties.).
 
5
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
I certify that on February 12, 2024, I posted NOTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP -24 -01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP -24 -01 on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.


6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 12, 2024, I posted NOTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP-24-01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP-24-01 on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.
___/signed electronically pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) by/__
___/signed electronically pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) by/__
Paul Gunter
Paul Gunter}}
 
6}}

Latest revision as of 20:25, 24 November 2024

Notification of Relevance of LBP 24-01 to This Proceeding and Request to Immediately Suspend Hearing Request Deadline Pending Resolution of Certified Question Raised in LBP 24-01
ML24043A036
Person / Time
Site: North Anna  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 02/12/2024
From: Curran D
Beyond Nuclear, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Sierra Club
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56928, 50-338-SLR-2, 50-339-SLR-2, LBP-24-01
Download: ML24043A036 (0)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of

)

Virginia Electric Power Co.

) Docket Nos. 50-338/339 SLR North Anna Power Station Units 1 & 2

)

February 12, 2024

___________________________________ )

NOTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP-24-01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP-24-01 Petitioners Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club hereby call to the attention of the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the relevance to this subsequent license renewal (SLR) proceeding of LBP-24-01, a recent decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in the SLR proceeding for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.1 In LBP-24-01, the ASLB certified the following question to the Commission:

Should the NRC Staff have waited to issue the notice of opportunity for hearing until it completed the Final SEIS [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], and if so, how does that impact the conduct of this proceeding?2 As recognized by the ASLB, the question raised in LBP-24-01 is relevant to this proceeding.3 The Commissions disposition of LBP-24-01 may moot or otherwise affect Petitioners pending motion to the Commissioners to withdraw the hearing notice for this proceeding.4 1 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), LBP-24-01 (slip op.) (Jan. 31, 2024) (LBP-24-01).

2 Id., slip op. at 4 (citing Duke Energy Carolinas, L.L.C. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and e), CLI-22-3, 95 N.R.C. 40 (2022) (CLI-22-03)).

3 Id., slip op. at 6 and n.30.

4 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice (filed Jan.

18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024) (Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice). The hearing notice was issued on January 8, 2024 at 89 Fed. Reg. 960.

Petitioners also note that on February 1, 2024, they submitted a conditional motion to extend the March 8, 2024 deadline in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice. See Conditional Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Extension of Time to

2 Petitioners also ask the Commissioners to exercise their supervisory authority to ensure the fairness and efficiency of this proceeding by immediately suspending the March 8, 2024 deadline for hearing requests pending resolution of the question certified by the ASLB in LBP-24-01. A temporary suspension of this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine whether submission of hearing requests is necessary at this time, potentially saving the parties and the ASLB a wasted effort.5 To the extent the Commissions standard for injunctive relief is applicable here, Petitioners respectfully submit that these circumstances satisfy the criteria for a stay in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.342 as follows:

1) Petitioners have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that issuance of the January 8, 2024 hearing notice was premature. As Petitioners contended in their Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice and as recognized by the ASLB in LBP 01, the clear direction of CLI-22-03 is that publication of hearing notices in the four SLR proceedings covered by the decision should await completion of the environmental Submit Hearing Request. Petitioners continue to advance that conditional request in the event the Commission denies their Motion to Withdraw or fails to provide a new 60-day notice as requested below.

5 See, e.g., Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. et al. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-99-30, 50 N.R.C. 333, 342-43 (1999) (temporarily suspending hearing at early stage of license transfer proceeding to allow potential intervenors to engage in independent contract negotiations that could moot their dispute before the NRC in the immediate future.).

3 review process, i.e., publication of the final EIS.6 While that timing is different from the NRCs established practice, the plain language of CLI-22-03 is unequivocal.7

2) Failure to immediately suspend the hearing notice will cause irreparable harm to Petitioners by requiring them to invest significant time and resources to prepare a hearing request that may be unnecessary, thereby leaving their time and resources depleted at a future point when they may be called upon to submit a hearing request based on the Final EIS. Preparation of a hearing request also takes time away from preparation of Petitioners comments on the Draft EIS, which are due February 22, 2024.8 While economic expenditures are not generally recognized as irreparable harm, it is indisputable that nonprofit organizations composed of ordinary citizens lack the same scale of staffing and financial resources as the federal government and the nuclear industry. If a hearing opportunity is to be meaningful, as intended by the NRC, prospective intervenors should not be forced to squander their limited resources at a premature stage.9 Further, requiring Petitioners to go ahead with a hearing request before 6 LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6 and n. 30. See also Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Withdraw Premature Hearing Notice at 3-4 (filed Jan. 18, 2024 and corrected Jan. 22, 2024)

(Motion to Withdraw Hearing Notice) (The Commissions repeated use of the word complete to describe the status of the environmental review demonstrates unequivocally that the Commission did not intend the hearing process for these particular site-specific environmental reviews to begin until after publication of a final EIS.).

7 LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6. LBP-24-01 thereby implicitly rejects Virginia Electric Power Companys (VEPCOs) argument in this proceeding that the term complete is ambiguous.

Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclears and Sierra Clubs Motion for Withdrawal of Hearing Notice at 5 (Jan. 29, 2024). And it implicitly rejects the Staffs argument that the term complete applies to completion of the Draft EIS. NRC Staffs Answer to Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Clubs Motion for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice at 6 (Jan. 29, 2024).

8 89 Fed. Reg. 960.

9 See NRC webpage on Public Participation, https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/public-participation.html:

4 resolving the inconsistency between the Secretarys hearing notice and the Commissions decision in CLI-22-03 causes irreparable harm to the NRCs credibility for conducting a fair, efficient and orderly hearing process.10

3) No party will be harmed by a suspension of the deadline for submitting hearing requests, because VEPCO submitted its SLR request more than a decade remains before expiration of the operating licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2.11 And the public interest in a fair and meaningful adjudicatory proceeding will be served by resolving the inconsistency between CLI-22-03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice before Petitioners are required to meet the deadline.

In order for the relief from the impending deadline to be meaningful, Petitioners request the Commissioners to suspend the March 8, 2024 deadline for hearing requests immediately.

Finally, as a matter of fairness to Petitioners and the general public, if the Commission decides to resolve the inconsistency between CLI-22-03 and the January 8, 2024 hearing notice by retaining the Secretarys requirement to submit hearing requests based on the Draft EIS, it The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers public involvement in, and information about, our activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry. We recognize the public's interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and provide opportunities for citizens to be heard. For that reason, consistent with The NRC Approach to Open Government, the agency is committed to providing opportunities for the public to participate meaningfully in the NRC's decisionmaking process.

10 See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 N.R.C. 18, 19 (1998) (calling for discipline in the hearing process and a prompt yet fair resolution of contested issues). See also LBP-24-01, slip op. at 6 (resolution of the question posed by the ASLB would materially advance this disposition of this proceeding, as well as other subsequent license renewal proceedings.).

11 85 Fed. Reg. 65,438 (Oct. 15, 2020) (citing operating license expiration dates of 2038 for North Anna Unit 1 and 2040 for North Anna Unit 2).

5 should re-issue the hearing notice to explain its decision to change the directive in CLI-22-03.

And it should provide a new 60-day period for the submission of hearing requests.12 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 February 12, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)

I certify that on February 8, 2024, I contacted counsel for VEPCO and the NRC Staff in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Counsel for VEPCO and the Staff stated that they oppose the motion to suspend the hearing deadline and reserve the right to respond to it.

___/signed electronically by/__

Diane Curran 12 See, e.g., Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 08, 55 N.R.C.222, 225 (1980) (holding that in the event a stayed ASLB proceeding were to resume, the Board should reset its filing and hearing schedule, with due regard for fairness to all parties.).

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 12, 2024, I posted NOTIFICATION OF RELEVANCE OF LBP-24-01 TO THIS PROCEEDING AND REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND HEARING REQUEST DEADLINE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION RAISED IN LBP-24-01 on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.

___/signed electronically pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) by/__

Paul Gunter

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML24043A036&oldid=3762845"