ML23086C086

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:36, 17 April 2023 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Vistra Operations Company Llc'S Answer Opposing the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing of Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation
ML23086C086
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 03/27/2023
From: Bessette P, Lighty R, Matthews T
Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Vistra Operations Company
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56681, 50-445-LR, 50-446-LR
Download: ML23086C086 (39)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of:

Docket Nos. 50-445-LR and 50-446-LR VISTRA OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC March 27, 2023 (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

VISTRA OPERATIONS COMPANY LLCS ANSWER OPPOSING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION Timothy P. Matthews, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Counsel for Vistra Operations Company LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3 A. License Renewal Reviews ..................................................................................... 3

1. Safety Review ............................................................................................ 3
2. Environmental Review............................................................................... 4 B. The LRA and Procedural History .......................................................................... 5 C. Legal Standards for Hearing Requests & Contention Admissibility ..................... 6 III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE CFUR FAILED TO PROPOSE AN ADMISSIBLE CONTENTION ............................................................... 9 A. Proposed Contention 1 (Radiological Effluents) Is Inadmissible .......................... 9
1. CFURs Reference to a 2021 Radiological Report Fails to Identify a Material Defect in the LRA................................................................... 10
2. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Radiological Impact Analyses .............. 12
3. CFURs Criticism of ER Section 3.6.4.2.1 Misapprehends the Underlying Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 ....................................... 14
4. CFURs Demand for a Financial Analysis Identifies No Deficiency in the ER ................................................................................ 15
5. CFURs Views on EPA Drinking Water Standards Identify No Deficiency in the LRA ............................................................................. 16 B. Proposed Contention 2 (Seismic Analysis) Is Inadmissible ................................ 17
1. CFUR Disregards the Comprehensive Safety and Environmental Analyses of Seismic Risk, Which Are Not Subject to Challenge in This Proceeding ....................................................................................... 18
2. CFUR Misconstrues and Fails to Acknowledge or Dispute the AMPs ....................................................................................................... 20
3. CFUR Fails to Identify Any Material Deficiency in the ERs Description of the Geologic Environment ............................................... 23
4. CFURs Claims Regarding Karst Topography Are Vague and Unsupported ............................................................................................. 25 C. Proposed Contention 3 (Climate Change & Cooling Water Availability) Is Inadmissible ......................................................................................................... 27
1. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Analysis in the ER................................. 28
2. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Safety Analyses, Which Are Part of the CLB and Beyond the Scope of This Proceeding ........................... 29 D. Proposed Contention 4 (CEQ Guidance) Is Inadmissible.................................... 31
1. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Analyses in the ER ................................ 32
2. CFUR Fails to Identify Any Unmet Requirement in Part 51................... 33
3. CFURs Duplicative Claims Regarding Climate Change and Water Availability Remain Inadmissible............................................................ 35 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 35 ii

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(1) and the Initial Prehearing Order issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board),1 Vistra Operations Company LLC (Vistra) submits this Answer opposing the Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request (Petition) filed by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) on March 1, 2023.2 CFUR seeks to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding and requests a hearing to challenge the application (LRA) submitted by Vistra to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 3, 2022, requesting renewal of the facility operating licenses for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CPNPP).3 As explained below, the Petition should be denied because CFUR has not submitted an admissible contention, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

In its Petition, CFUR proffers four proposed contentions related to (1) radiological effluents, (2) seismic analysis, (3) climate change and cooling water availability, and (4) guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). But, as detailed in Section III below, none of them are admissible. As an overarching matter, most of CFURs arguments are exceptionally vague and ambiguous. CFUR argues that the LRA allegedly omits or inadequately considers certain topics. However, the Petition largely fails to identify any particular portion of the LRA being challenged or even indicate whether the challenge relates to safety or environmental matters. Similarly, none of CFURs claimsnot even oneidentifies a specific regulation or NRC requirement that allegedly is unmet. Vague claims such as this are 1

Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order) (Feb. 8, 2023) (unpublished)

(ML23039A158).

2 Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing of Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (Mar. 1, 2023) (ML23060A486) (Petition). The Petition was accompanied by several standing declarations and two documents labeled Attachment A (ML23060A487) and Attachment B (ML23060A493).

3 See Letter from S. Sewell, Vistra, to NRC Document Control Desk, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 . . . License Renewal Application (Oct. 3, 2022) (ML22276A082).

inadmissible because the Board and the parties are not required to guess what arguments CFUR may be attempting to advance.4 Furthermore, CFURs claims regarding allegedly omitted information and analyses are baseless and insufficiently supported. Some of that information is plainly in the LRA, but CFUR simply disregards itand certainly does not challenge it. And some of that information is provided elsewhere, such as documents that are part of CPNPPs Current Licensing Basis (CLB)5 or generic environmental analyses that are codified in NRC regulations.6 CFUR appears to be unaware of that information, which is neither required to be republished in the LRA nor subject to challenge in this proceeding. Accordingly, these unsupported and out-of-scope claims fail to identify any material dispute with the LRA.

Beyond those fundamental and overarching defects,Section III below details the numerous and overlapping reasons why none of CFURs proposed contentions satisfy the contention admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). Accordingly, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(a), the Petition should be denied.7 4

Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 241 (1989) (no obligation to search for a needle that may be in a haystack.).

5 See 10 C.F.R. § 54.3(a) (defining the CLB).

6 See id., Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

7 Vistra does not oppose CFURs assertion of standing. However, because CFUR has not proffered an admissible contention, the question of whether CFUR has satisfied the standing requirements in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(d) is immaterial to adjudication of the CFUR Petition. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a); DTE Elec. Co. (Fermi 2), CLI-21-5, 93 NRC 131, 143 (2021).

2

II. BACKGROUND A. License Renewal Reviews The NRCs review of license renewal applications for nuclear power reactors consists of both a safety review and an environmental review, which are primarily governed by the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Parts 54 and 51, respectively.

1. Safety Review The objective of the NRCs license renewal safety review is to ensure that the licensee can successfully manage the detrimental effects of aging.8 Accordingly, the license renewal regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 focus on whether the licensee can manage the effects of aging on certain long-lived, passive components that are important to safety.9 Those Aging Management Programs (AMPs) are at the core of the NRCs license renewal safety framework. The NRC has published guidance (known as the GALL Report) that analyzes aging management issues generically and contains AMPs that may be used by applicants to satisfy aging management requirements in Part 54.10 Importantly, [t]he license renewal [safety] review is not intended to duplicate the NRCs ongoing oversight of operating reactors.11 In particular, a plants CLBincluding information presented in the plants Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)is beyond the limited scope of license renewal and cannot be challenged in a license renewal adjudicatory proceeding.12 The Commission determined that re-assessments of CLB safety issues at the license renewal stage 8

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3), CLI-15-6, 81 NRC 340, 347 (2015).

9 Id.; see also 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21, 54.29(a).

10 See NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report (Rev. 2, Dec. 2010) (ML103490041)

(GALL Report).

11 Indian Point, CLI-15-6, 81 NRC at 347.

12 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 7-9 (2001).

3

would be unnecessary and wasteful13 because those issues are effectively addressed and maintained by ongoing agency oversight, review, and enforcement.14

2. Environmental Review The NRCs license renewal environmental regulations in Part 51 are based, in large part, on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), which summarizes the findings of a systematic inquiry (accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking) into the potential environmental consequences of license renewal.15 Based on these analyses, the GEIS delineates two types of environmental issues:
  • Generic Category 1 issues, for which the NRC made generic conclusions applicable to all existing nuclear power plants; and
  • Plant-Specific Category 2 issues, for which site-specific analyses are required for each individual license renewal proceeding.

For Category 1 issues, the GEIS assigns impact levels (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE),

which are codified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Because those Category 1 findings are codified, they are not subject to challenge in individual adjudicatory proceedings.16 As part of an initial license renewal application,17 applicants must submit an environmental 13 Id. at 7.

14 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 638 (2004) (citation omitted).

15 See NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (Rev. 0, May 1996) (Vol. 1, ML040690705); id. (Rev. 1, June 2013) (Vol. 1, ML13106A241). As used in this brief, GEIS refers to Rev. 1 unless otherwise noted. The NRC is currently working on Rev. 2 of the GEIS and corresponding changes to 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, but that effort is only at the draft/proposed rule stage and does not apply to this proceeding. See SRM-SECY-22-0109, Proposed Rule:

Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Jan. 23, 2023)

(ML23023A208).

16 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.335 (prohibiting challenges to NRC regulations absent a waiver from the Commission);

Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-07-3, 65 NRC 13, 17-18 (2007)

(Because the generic environmental analysis was incorporated into a regulation, the conclusions of that analysis may not be challenged in litigation).

17 The Commissions recent decision that the GEIS and codified analyses in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B do not apply to subsequent license renewals, Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear 4

report considering all Category 2 issues on a plant-specific basis.18 Applicants need not replicate the GEIS analyses of Category 1 issues in an environmental report.19 Ultimately, the NRC Staff draws upon the applicants environmental report, the GEIS, and other sources of information to produce a plant-specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for each license renewal application.20 B. The LRA and Procedural History Vistra submitted the CPNPP LRA, including the required environmental report attached thereto as Appendix E (ER), to the NRC on October 3, 2022.21 The LRA has been publicly available on the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) since October 25, 2022.22 The NRC then published, in the Federal Register, a notice of receipt of the LRA on October 31, 2022,23 and a separate notice on December 1, 2022, offering an opportunity for members of the public to file hearing requests and petitions to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding by January 30, 2023.24 CFUR initially filed a hearing request and petition to intervene on that date.25 However, the NRC Secretary subsequently extended the Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI-22-02, 95 NRC __ (Feb. 24, 2022) (slip op.), does not affect this proceeding, which pertains to an initial license renewal.

18 See 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.41, 51.45, 51.53(c)(3)(ii).

19 See id. § 51.53(c)(3)(i). Licensees may incorporate by reference those analyses and the codified impact findings from Appendix B. See id. § 51.53(a).

20 See generally GEIS at 1-16 to 1-19.

21 See LRA, App. E (ER).

22 See Web-based ADAMS, https://adams.nrc.gov/wba/ (Date Added property for Accession Number ML22276A082).

23 Vistra Operations Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 87 Fed. Reg. 65,617 (Oct. 31, 2022).

24 Vistra Operations Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 87 Fed. Reg. 73,798 (Dec. 1, 2022) (Hearing Opportunity Notice).

25 Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing of Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (Jan. 30, 2023)

(ML23030B927).

5

hearing request deadline until March 1, 2023.26 Thereafter, the Board issued a series of orders regarding scheduling and other prehearing matters for this proceeding.27 CFUR filed an amended hearing request and petition to intervene on March 1, 2023 (simply referred to herein as the Petition). Vistra hereby files its timely answer to the CFUR Petition.28 C. Legal Standards for Hearing Requests & Contention Admissibility Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a)(1), a hearing request and petition to intervene may be granted only if the presiding officer determines that the petitioner has demonstrated standing and has proposed at least one admissible contention that meets all six of the threshold admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).29 Failure to satisfy any one of these six admissibility criteria requires that a proposed contention be rejected.30 These criteria are strict by design.31 The rules were toughenedin 1989 because in prior years licensing boards had admitted and litigated numerous contentions that appeared to be based on little more than speculation.32 The 26 NRC Secretary Order at 1-2 (Jan. 30, 2023) (unpublished) (ML23030B901) (extending the deadline for certain named individuals); NRC Secretary Order at 1-2 (Feb. 6, 2023) (unpublished) (ML23037A791) (extending the deadline for all members of the public).

27 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order) (Feb. 8, 2023) (unpublished)

(ML23039A158); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Joint Motion to Adjust Briefing Schedule (Feb. 13, 2023) (unpublished) (ML23044A481); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order Supplement) (Mar. 6, 2023) (unpublished) (ML23065A201)

(IPO Supplement).

28 IPO Supplement at 2 (establishing Mar. 27, 2023, as the deadline for answers to the Petition).

29 A proposed contention must: (i) provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) demonstrate that the issue raised is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions, including references to the specific sources and documents that support the petitioners position and upon which the petitioner intends to rely; and (vi) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.

30 See Changes to Adjudicatory Process; Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,221 (Jan. 14, 2004); see also Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999).

31 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001).

32 Id. (quoting Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999)).

6

petitioner alone bears the affirmative burden to satisfy these criteria.33 Thus, where a petition fails to do so on its face, the Board may not cure a deficiency or fill a gap by supplying the information that is lacking or making factual assumptions that favor the petitioner.34 Key aspects of the six admissibility criteria are summarized below.

Basis and Specificity: In simple terms, a contention must articulate the specific legal or regulatory requirement that it claims to be unsatisfied, and then it also must explain the basis for that claim. That is because the parties are entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being sought.35 Scope: The subject matter of all contentions is limited to the scope of the proceeding delineated by the Commission in its hearing notice and referral order delegating to the Licensing Board the authority to conduct the proceeding.36 Challenges to NRC rules are prohibited as outside the scope of a proceeding because, absent a waiver, no rule or regulation of the Commissionis subject to attackin any adjudicatory proceeding.37 This includes challenges to the generic environmental analyses and conclusions codified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.38 33 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-23, 82 NRC 321, 325, 329 (2015)

(stating [t]he proponent of a contention is responsible for formulating the contention and providing the necessary support to satisfy the contention admissibility requirements and it is Petitioners responsibility, not the Boards, to formulate contentions and to provide the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement for admission) (citation omitted); see also DTE Elec. Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2),

CLI-15-18, 82 NRC 135, 149 (2015) (the Board may not substitute its own support for a contention or make arguments for the litigants that were never made by the litigants themselves.) (citation omitted).

34 See Fermi, CLI-15-18, 82 NRC at 149.

35 Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 576 (1975)

(emphasis added).

36 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), CLI-00-23, 52 NRC 327, 329 (2000); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-825, 22 NRC 785, 790 (1985).

37 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a).

38 Vt. Yankee, CLI-07-3, 65 NRC at 17-18.

7

Materiality: A material issue is one that would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.39 The petitioner must demonstrate that the application deficiency asserted in the contention would impact the grant or denial of the pending application.40 Adequate Support: Presiding officers must scrutinize documents and expert opinions to confirm that they support a proposed contention.41 A petitioners imprecise reading of a document cannot support a litigable contention.42 Likewise, a document or expert opinion that merely states a conclusion, without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion, is insufficient to satisfy this criterion.43 Furthermore, bare assertions and speculation, even by experts, are incapable of providing the requisite support for a proposed contention.44 Genuine Dispute: The Commission has stated that petitioners must read the pertinent portions of the license application . . . state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view, and explain why the petitioner disagrees with the applicant.45 In other words, a contention of sufficiency that does not directly controvert specific text within the application is 39 Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 333-34 (citation omitted).

40 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 62 (2008) (citation omitted).

41 See Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919, 30 NRC 29, 48 (1989),

vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, CLI-90-4, 31 NRC 333 (1990).

42 See Ga. Inst. of Tech. (Ga. Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Ga.), LBP-95-6, 41 NRC 281, 300 (1995).

43 See USEC, Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006).

44 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (2003) (quoting GPU Nuclear, Inc.

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000)).

45 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings; Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process; Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989) (Procedural Changes); see also Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358.

8

subject to dismissal.46 And for contentions of omission, the petitioner must demonstrate two things: (a) that the applicant had a legal obligation to provide the allegedly-omitted information, and (b) that such information is, in fact, absent from the application.47 The Commission has long held that reply briefs cannot be used to cure admissibility defects identified by other parties or otherwise reinvigorate thinly supported contentions.48 NRC contention admissibility and timeliness requirements demand a level of discipline and preparedness on the part of petitioners, who must set forth precise claims at the outset of the proceeding.49 Thus, if a proposed contentionas presented in the initial petitionfails to satisfy these contention admissibility requirements, that is the end of the inquiry.

III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE CFUR FAILED TO PROPOSE AN ADMISSIBLE CONTENTION In its Petition, CFUR proposes four contentions. But, as explained below, none of those proposed contentions satisfy the admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) and its Petition should be denied.

A. Proposed Contention 1 (Radiological Effluents) Is Inadmissible In Proposed Contention 1, CFUR argues that the LRA is deficient because it allegedly fails to include certain information regarding radionuclides and radiological impacts. However, as discussed further below, CFUR fails to demonstrate or even explain why additional 46 See S.C. Elec. & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-10-1, 71 NRC 1, 21-22 (2010); Tex. Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-37, 36 NRC 370, 384 (1992), vacated as moot, CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993).

47 See Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), LBP-04-15, 60 NRC 81, 95 (2004) (if the allegedly missing information is indeed in the license application, then the contention does not raise a genuine dispute).

48 La. Energy Servs., LP (Natl Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 NRC 223, 224 (2004).

49 Id. at 225.

9

radiological information is required to be presented in the LRA. CFUR also does not identify any particular regulatory requirement that allegedly is unmet. Fundamentally, CFUR has not articulated a legal or regulatory basis for its challenge.50 The Board and other parties are not required to guess what that basis might be.51 For that reason alone, the contention is inadmissible because it fails to satisfy the minimum basis and specificity requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i), (ii), (v) and (vi).

Additionally, CFURs claims regarding allegedly omitted radiological impacts analyses are meritless because the relevant data and analyses are, in fact, provided throughout the application. CFUR neither acknowledges nor disputes that information, and therefore fails to demonstrate a genuine, adequately supported dispute with the LRA, contrary to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi). As detailed below, CFURs other assertions in Proposed Contention 1 are variously out of scope, immaterial, unsupported, and fail to raise a genuine dispute with the LRA, and therefore do not satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(vi). As a result, Proposed Contention 1 is inadmissible on multiple grounds.

1. CFURs Reference to a 2021 Radiological Report Fails to Identify a Material Defect in the LRA CFUR claims that some unspecified portion of the LRA fails to include updated information on the release of tritium and other radionuclides.52 More specifically, CFUR argues that the LRA should (without citation to any regulatory requirement) include (in some unspecified portion of the application) the CPNPP Annual Radiological Environmental 50 Wolf Creek, ALAB-279, 1 NRC at 576 (parties are entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being sought (emphasis added)).

51 Seabrook, CLI-89-3, 29 NRC at 241.

52 Petition at 9.

10

Operating Report (AREOR) for calendar year 2021.53 As a general matter, CFURs failure to identify any regulatory provision that allegedly requires information from the 2021 report (as opposed to the prior years report, which was the most current during preparation of the LRA) is not surprising, given that no such prescriptive requirement exists.

CFUR also states that the types of measurements and determinations and key related data typically presented in an AREOR should be analyzed in the LRA.54 But they have been.

Specifically, the ER cites to the CPNPP AREORs (and other radiological effluent reports) for calendar years 2016 through 2020.55 As explained in the ER, those reports demonstrate that effluents from CPNPP comply with NRC and EPA radiation protection standards and are not increasing.56 CFUR does not allege that the 2021 AREOR contains any information that contradicts, calls into question, or otherwise alters that analysis.57 Thus, CFUR has not demonstrated that the absence of a specific reference to the 2021 AREOR is a material issue i.e., one that would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.58 Accordingly, this claim fails to supply an adequately supported genuine dispute with the application on a material issue of law or fact, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

53 Id. at 10.

54 Id. at 11 (emphasis added).

55 ER at 10-3 (CPNPP. 2021), 10-10 (Luminant. 2020c), and 10-24 to 10-25 (Vistra OpCo 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, and 2021b). The reports for calendar year 2021 (submitted in 2022) were not included simply due to the timing of ER preparation, which is a years-long process that requires verification and validation activities in the months leading up to ER submittal.

56 Id. at 4-42.

57 A brief review of the 2021 AREOR reveals that the information therein is generally consistent with that presented in the reports for calendar years 2016 through 2020; thus, even if CFUR had asserted (it did not) that the 2021 AREOR contained materially different information, that claim would be unsupported.

58 Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 333-34 (citation omitted).

11

2. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Radiological Impact Analyses Next, CFUR alleges that some unspecified portion of the LRA fails to analyze various radiological impacts. More specifically, CFUR claims the LRA fails to analyze cumulative radiological impacts and resulting potential health risks of operating Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years, fails to fully analyze the hazards that would result from 20 more years of discharge of water that contains radioactive particulates and tritium into Squaw Creek Reservoir, fails to provide analysis of an additional 20 years of gamma emitters and cumulative impacts to farms, crops, wildlife, and vegetation, and fails to analyze the potential health impacts to workers and the surrounding community.59 However, those assertions are meritless because the required analyses have been completed and are referenced in the LRA. CFUR simply disregards them.

For example, the GEIS plainly includes multiple analyses related to these topics, including, among others, analyses of:

  • Radiation Exposures to the Public,60
  • Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers,61
  • Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides,62 and
  • Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides.63 The NRC analyzed each of those issues generically for all plants in the GEIS as Category 1 issues and concluded that the environmental impacts are SMALL in each area. And the ER 59 Petition at 10, 12.

60 See, e.g., GEIS at 3-97 to 3-136, 4-140 to 4-146.

61 See, e.g., id. at 3-97 to 3-136, 4-135 to 4-139.

62 See, e.g., id. at 3-68 to 3-76, 4-105 to 4-107 63 See, e.g., id. at 3-63 to 3-68, 4-61 to 4-64 12

squarely adopts by reference those analyses.64 Thus, CFURs assertions that the ER fails to include analyses of these issues is verifiably incorrect and unsupported. CFUR simply overlooks those analyses and fails to raise a genuine dispute with the LRA.

Furthermore, because the Commission has designated those topics as Category 1 issues and codified the analyses and impact conclusions in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, any challenges to those issues would be impermissible pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a), which makes clear that Commission regulations are not subject to attack in adjudicatory proceedings.65 And to the extent CFURs claims could generously be viewed as attacking the ER for not republishing those Category 1 analyses or providing new analyses of those issues, that argument also would be impermissiblebecause the NRCs regulations, at 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(c)(3)(i), unambiguously say that is not required.

Additionally, the ER presents an analysis of the Category 2 issue Radionuclides Released to Groundwater (ER § 4.5.5).66 To the extent Proposed Contention 1 could be interpreted to claim that analysis has been omitted, that claim is plainly wrong. Moreover, that analysis fully complies with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P), and CFUR does not claim (much less, demonstrate) otherwise. Thus, as to this Category 2 issue, CFUR has not identified a genuine dispute as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

64 ER at 4-2, 4-6 to 4-7.

65 The only exception to this prohibition is pursuant to a Commission-granted waiver, see 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(b),

which CFUR neither requested nor obtained here.

66 ER at 4-13 to 4-15. See also ER at 3-238 to 3-239 (discussing results of tritium monitoring in Squaw Creek Reservoir).

13

3. CFURs Criticism of ER Section 3.6.4.2.1 Misapprehends the Underlying Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 In the only part of Proposed Contention 1 that identifies a specific portion of the LRA that it purports to challenge, CFUR alleges that ER Section 3.6.4.2.1 is inadequate because it omits necessary information.67 This section of the ER, within the discussion of Groundwater Quality, is titled History of Radioactive Releases.68 CFUR criticizes this portion of the ER because it does not include an analysis of potential inadvertent radiological releases that may occur in the future.69 This criticism misses the mark on all fronts.

First, CFUR identifies no requirement to provide forward-looking analyses in ER Section 3.6.4.2.1. Nor does any such requirement exist. Chapter 3 of the ER is intended to satisfy the requirement in 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2) to describe the affected environment around the plantin other words, the environmental baseline.70 Consistent with applicable NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.2, this section of the ER provides historical information about radioactive releases.71 CFUR offers no reason that a discussion of events that may occur in the future is necessary to comply with the requirement to describe historical information. Nor does CFUR identify any other reason that the absence thereof is material to the ERs compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2).72 67 Petition at 10.

68 ER at 3-104 to 3-105.

69 Petition at 10 (emphasis added).

70 ER at 1-4, tbl. 1.1-1.

71 Regulatory Guide 4.2, supp. 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications at 18 (Rev. 1, June 2013) (ML13067A354).

72 Potential impacts from radionuclides released to groundwater during the period of extended operation (i.e., in the future) are analyzed in a different portion of the ER, Section 4.5.5, which as noted above (see supra Section III.A.2) CFUR neither acknowledges nor challenges.

14

Second, the ER addresses the separate requirement in 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) to consider projected impacts of inadvertent radiological releases during the license renewal term (i.e., in the future) in a separate part of the ERnamely, Section 4.5.5.73 As noted above, CFUR neither acknowledges nor challenges that analysis.74 Accordingly, this argument fails to raise a material issue or identify a genuine supported dispute with the LRA on a material issue of law or fact, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

4. CFURs Demand for a Financial Analysis Identifies No Deficiency in the ER CFUR also complains that [t]he LRA fails to analyze the financial consequences of 20 more years of radiologic releases and the potential cost of remediation in the future.75 CFUR fails to identify which portion of the LRA it believes must present such information or any regulation that allegedly requires it to be presented at all. In fact, it is unclear whether CFUR is referring to normal-operating or post-accident conditions. To the extent CFUR is referring to normal operations, there is no requirement to consider remediation for radiological releases that are well below regulatory limits. To the extent CFUR is referring to accident conditions, potential costs of remediation are addressed as part of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis,76 which CFUR fails to acknowledge or dispute. Thus, CFURs argument is immaterial and fails to identify a genuine dispute with the application, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) and (vi).

Moreover, although not entirely clear, CFURs reference to remediation in the future could refer to decommissioning activities. However, Termination of plant operations and 73 ER at 1-4, tbl. 1.1-1; ER § 4.5.5 (which also cross-references discussions of the CPNPP Groundwater Protection Program, groundwater monitoring wells, and historical releases).

74 See supra Section III.A.2 75 Petition at 10.

76 ER at 4-46 to 4-70.

15

decommissioning is a Category 1 issue that has been fully analyzed in the GEIS with a codified impact finding of SMALL in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. As noted above, 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a) prohibits attacks on that codified environmental analysis in this proceeding. Thus, such a challenge would be out-of-scope, contrary to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

5. CFURs Views on EPA Drinking Water Standards Identify No Deficiency in the LRA Finally, the Petition provides a two-page discussion of tritium drinking water standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).77 CFUR purports to criticize the 20,000 pCi/L drinking water standard78 and notes that two states, Colorado and California, have promulgated different standards.79 CFURs apparent dissatisfaction with EPA regulations, on its face, is far beyond the scope of this NRC licensing proceeding, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

Furthermore, CFUR does not explain how its preference for different drinking water standards somehow identifies a purported noncompliance in the ER with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51or any other regulation. As explained above,80 the ER and GEIS collectively provide multiple analyses of radiological impactsnone of which CFUR has acknowledged or disputedthat fully comply with the applicants Part 51 obligations. Thus, CFURs vague assertions and criticisms regarding EPA standards fail to identify, with specificity, any material issue or genuine dispute with the LRA, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) and (vi).

77 Petition at 14-16.

78 Id. at 14 (apparently referencing 40 C.F.R. § 141.66(d), tbl. A).

79 Id. at 16.

80 See supra Section III.A.2.

16

CFUR also republishes a table purporting to show tritium concentrations in Lake Granbury in 2006.81 But, CFUR fails to explain the purported relevance of that table. As a practical matter, water from Lake Granbury is pumped to Squaw Creek Reservoir via an underground pipelinenot the other way around.82 CPNPP does not discharge any water into Lake Granbury. So, to the extent CFUR implies that the tritium referenced in the table is from CPNPP, its assertion is unsupported and misleading. And these claims certainly do not provide support for a contention, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

Ultimately, Proposed Contention 1 is inadmissible because it fails to satisfy any, much less all, of the criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

B. Proposed Contention 2 (Seismic Analysis) Is Inadmissible In Proposed Contention 2, CFUR argues that the LRA is deficient because it allegedly fails to include certain seismic information and analyses related to low-magnitude earthquakes.

It is unclear, however, whether CFUR is raising an environmental or safety issue in this contention. Regardless, CFUR misapprehends the regulatory framework applicable to either.

From a safety perspective, seismic analyses are part of the plants CLB; and as an environmental matter, postulated risks of low-magnitude earthquakes are evaluated in the GEIS as a Category 1 issue. CFUR appears unaware of those analyses, which, in any event, are not subject to challenge here. And CFURs remaining claims regarding purported missing seismic information are vague, unsupported, and fail to raise a genuine material dispute with the LRA. Thus, as further detailed below, Proposed Contention 2 is inadmissible on multiple grounds.

81 Petition at 16.

82 ER at 3-139.

17

1. CFUR Disregards the Comprehensive Safety and Environmental Analyses of Seismic Risk, Which Are Not Subject to Challenge in This Proceeding At the core of Proposed Contention 2 are CFURs baseless claims that the seismic information in the LRA is allegedly inadequate and that a catastrophic seismic event could occur as a result of hydraulic fracturing and slipping of lineaments.83 However, CFUR fundamentally misconstrues the regulatory requirements associated with seismic risk analysis.

The comprehensive seismic analyses supporting CPNPP safe operation are provided in other documents that are not required to be republished in the LRA and are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. Ultimately, these claims do not identify an admissible contention.

As a safety matter, seismic risk is evaluated as part of the plants CLB. For example, licensees are required to provide detailed technical demonstrations that plants are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, with appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated.84 For CPNPP, the relevant analyses are provided or summarized in various CLB documents, including the CPNPP FSAR,85 which is referenced throughout the LRA.86 Furthermore, following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, the NRC conducted a systematic reevaluation of 83 Petition at 17-22.

84 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. A (Criterion 2).

85 See, e.g., [CPNPP FSAR], amend. 111 at §§ 2.5 (Geology and Seismology), 3.7N and 3.7B (Seismic Design) (Feb. 2022) (ML22277A825). See also, e.g., id. at 9.2-29 (If, as a result of an earthquake, the

[Squaw Creek Reservoir] dam fails, [the plant will remain safe because] the equalization channel invert maintains the water level in the SSI).

86 See, e.g., LRA at 4.7-19 (referencing FSAR sections 2.4.8.2.2, 2.4.11.6, 9.2.5.2, 9.2.5.3, and various tables and figures).

18

seismic hazards at all nuclear power plants in the United States.87 This review, which considered updated seismic hazard information, resulted in a confirmation by the NRC, in 2016, that CPNPPs existing seismic design basis continued to satisfy all regulatory safety requirements.88 CFUR identifies no regulatory obligation to duplicate and republish the CLB safety analysis in the LRAnor is there any such requirement in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 (or any other provision of NRC regulations). Thus, CFURs challenge to the omission of this information from the LRA is immaterial and fails to raise a genuine dispute with the application. And even if CFUR had attempted to dispute some portion of that CLB seismic safety analysis (it did not), its challenge still would be inadmissible because the CLB is not subject to challenge in this adjudicatory proceeding,89 and such out-of-scope claims do not satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

For the environmental review, potential environmental impacts of hypothesized external events such as earthquakes are analyzed as Postulated Accidents.90 More specifically, for earthquakes within the plants design basis, the NRC analyzed the issue of Design Basis Accidents generically in the GEIS. Because, as noted above, nuclear plants are subject to stringent safety requirements (including those related to the plants ability to withstand a design 87 Letter from R. Flores to NRC Document Control Desk, [CPNPP] Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, Attach. at 1 (Mar. 27, 2014) (ML14099A197) (CPNPP 2014 Seismic Report).

88 Letter from F. Vega to R. Flores, [CPNPP] - Staff Assessment of [CPNPP 2014 Seismic Report] and Staff Closure of Activities Associated with Recommendation 2.1, Seismic (CAC Nos. MF3937 and MF3938)

(Jan 22, 2016) (ML16014A125) (the NRC staff review concluded that the reevaluated seismic hazard is bounded by the plant[]s existing design-basis safe shutdown earthquake. As such, the NRC staff concludes that no further responses or regulatory actions . . . are needed for Comanche Peak).

89 Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 7-9; Millstone, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC at 638.

90 See generally ER § 4.15.

19

basis earthquake) and are required to implement AMPs during the license renewal term,91 the agency codified its conclusion that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants.92 CFURs arguments in Proposed Contention 2 pertain to relatively minor93 earthquakes that are well within the CPNPP design basis.94 Thus, to the extent CFUR claims that the potential environmental impacts of relatively minor earthquakes have not been analyzed, its claim is unsupported and incorrectbecause those impacts have been fully analyzed on a generic basis in the GEIS. CFUR does not acknowledge or attempt to dispute that analysis.

And, if CFUR had attempted to dispute that analysis (it did not), its challenge would be inadmissible because that codified analysis is not subject to challenge in this adjudicatory proceeding; thus, such claims would have been out-of-scope, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

2. CFUR Misconstrues and Fails to Acknowledge or Dispute the AMPs CFUR claims the LRA allegedly documents certain conditions, such as cracking in various components and loss of material on dams and other structures.95 CFUR relies on these assertions to support its demand for an analysis of seismic risk. As explained above, seismic risk has been comprehensively analyzed in both the safety and environmental contexts.

91 See, e.g., GEIS at S-17 (providing summary of conclusion).

92 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1.

93 Petition at 17 (referring to earthquakes ranging in magnitude from 2.0 to 3.3).

94 The CPNPP seismic design basis is not expressed as a simple Richter magnitude scale value; rather, it considers seismic loadings in far more granular detail at different frequencies and vibratory ground motions.

But, as a general matter, the Safe Shutdown Earthquake is defined as the maximum vibratory ground motion at the plant site that can reasonably be predicted from geologic and seismic evidence (FSAR at 3.7N-1),

whereas the maximum recorded Richter scale magnitude of an earthquake within a 200-mile radius of CPNPP since 1970 was 4.5 (ER at 3-57)well above the relatively minor earthquakes CFUR raises in this contention.

95 Petition at 18-19.

20

Thus, CFURs overarching claims are factually baseless and do not support an admissible contention. Still, in the interest of an accurate adjudicatory record, CFURs erroneous claims regarding cracking and loss of material should be corrected.

The portions of the LRA to which CFUR refers for these claims are summary tables related to aging management activities.96 The use of the terms cracking and loss of material in those tables do not summarize conditions that have been observed at CPNPP; rather, they list the specific types of age-related degradation mechanisms for which Vistra will implement robust AMPs to prevent, detect, and manage throughout the PEO.97 CFUR simply misreads the application.98 CFUR also asserts that the absence of an earthquake-induced dam failure to date does not mean that cracking or damage may not have occurred.99 But there is no dispute on that point. To the extent CFURs claims pertain to the Squaw Creek Dam, that facility is subject to regulation by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Vistra operates and maintains Squaw Creek Dam in accordance with the regulatory requirements in Texas Administrative Code chapter 299 and 30 TAC 299.43, including regular monitoring, evaluation, and inspections. However, compliance with these TCEQ requirements is a matter well beyond 96 Id. at 18-19 (citing LRA, tbls.3.1.2-2, Reactor Vessel Internals - Summary of Aging Management Evaluation and 3.5-1, Summary of Aging Management Programs for Containment Building and Internal Structural Components).

97 See generally GALL Report.

98 See Ga. Tech Research Reactor, LBP-95-6, 41 NRC at 300 (a petitioners imprecise reading of a document cannot support a litigable contention).

99 Petition at 19. CFUR also cites a 2014 document noting that the maximum potential earthquake [at CPNPP]

would be an intensity VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) event. Id. at 20 (citing CPNPP 2014 Seismic Report).

CFUR then makes the baseless assertion that such an earthquake could cause meaningful damage to CPNPP.

Id. In fact, CFURs selective quotation ignores the exact opposite conclusion presented in the very next sentence. Seismic Report, Attach. at 2 (noting that ground accelerations at the site from the maximum potential earthquake (intensity VII) would be less than or equal to 0.10g, whereas the plant is conservatively designed to withstand a design basis earthquake that produces peak ground accelerations of 0.12gi.e., 20%

higher than an intensity VII event).

21

the scope of this proceeding. And, in the context of this licensing action, the Squaw Creek Dam is neither safety-related nor is it within the scope of license renewal.100 And CFUR does not claim or demonstrate otherwise. Thus, to the extent CFURs seismic claims pertain to the Squaw Creek Dam, they are beyond the scope of this proceeding, unsupported, immaterial, and fail to raise a genuine dispute with the LRA.

In contrast, the Safe Shutdown Impoundment (SSI) Dam is safety-related and is within the scope of license renewal.101 The LRA includes dozens of AMPs covering a range of issues, including one dedicated to Inspection of Water-Control Structures Associated with Nuclear Power Plants.102 That program includes explicit provisions to address age-related deterioration, degradation due to environmental conditions, and the effects of natural phenomena that may affect water-control structures.103 Thus, to the extent CFUR asserts that such deterioration, degradation, or natural phenomena could result in a catastrophic breach of the SSI dam, and that this issue was not adequately considered by the LRA,104 it entirely disregards the relevant portion of the application that addresses that topic. Because CFUR does not acknowledge that AMP (or any other), it certainly has not attempted to dispute the sufficiency thereof, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

100 The Squaw Creek Dam is separated from Seismic Category I structures by a great distance and ha[s] no interaction with nuclear safety related components or the nuclear safety related SSI. LRA at 2.2-8, tbl. 2.2-3.

See also NUREG-0797, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 at 2-34 (July 1981) (ML20009F815) (Squaw Creek Dam is not required for the safe shutdown of the plant); FSAR at 9.2-29 (If, as a result of an earthquake, the [Squaw Creek] dam fails, [the plant will remain safe because] the equalization channel invert maintains the water level in the SSI).

101 LRA at 2.2-6, tbl. 2.2-3; 2.4-21 to 2.4-22.

102 See, e.g., id. at App. B § B.2.3.35.

103 Id.

104 Petition at 19.

22

3. CFUR Fails to Identify Any Material Deficiency in the ERs Description of the Geologic Environment CFUR also argues that the list of Historical Earthquakes in Table 3.5-2 of the ER is not adequate in that it lists only those events at 3.0 magnitude or greater.105 However, CFUR does not identify any prescriptive requirement to provide, in the ER, a comprehensive list of minor historical earthquakes below magnitude 3.0and no such requirement exists. Nor does CFUR explain why this information would, in any way, be material to the Staffs review.

The information in ER Chapter 3 is provided to comply with the requirement in 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(c)(2) to describe the affected environment around the plantspecifically, the geologic environment. According to longstanding NRC guidance, to satisfy this requirement, [t]he seismic history of the site since construction, including the largest historic regional earthquake, should be summarized.106 In other words, the ER is not required to provide an exhaustive list of historical earthquakesin fact, it is not required to provide a list at all. Thus, by providing the list in Table 3.5-2, the ER already supplies information above and beyond what is necessary to satisfy Section 51.53(c)(2) as to seismic history. CFUR does not offer any reasoned explanation or support for its contrary claim.107 CFUR also points to a document labeled as Exhibit A, which purports to show certain earthquakes between 2009 and 2012 with magnitudes between 2.0 and 3.3.108 The sole earthquake depicted in Exhibit A with a magnitude greater than 3.0 is, in fact, included in 105 Id. at 17.

106 Regulatory Guide 4.2, supp. 1 at 16 (emphasis added).

107 Furthermore, ER Table 3.5-2 is consistent with safety analysis guidance applicable to CPNPP. See FSAR at 1.1-1 (This report follows the format recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2); Regulatory Guide 1.70, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; LWR Edition at 2-26 to 2-27) (Rev. 2, Sept. 1975) (ML010610289) (NRC guidance recommending that FSAR seismic history discussions list earthquakes with magnitude greater than 3.0).

108 Petition at 17 (referencing Exhibit A).

23

Table 3.5-2.109 Thus, this information does not appear to contradict anything in the ER.

Similarly, CFUR claims that more than one dozen earthquakes occurred in just a three-year period alone between the years of 2009 and 2012.110 To the extent CFUR is arguing that the ER does not acknowledge recent seismic events, that argument is factually incorrect. The ER plainly states that, [o]f the 168 earthquakes reported since 1970, 133 occurred since 2009, and observes that the magnitudes of these earthquakes have been relatively low.111 CFUR neither acknowledges nor disputes that assertion, nor explains why anything more is required.

Relatedly, CFUR makes a vague assertion that reliance on an outdated 2013 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not prudent, and claims that the omission of updated data is a serious flaw in the LRA.112 CFUR does not specify which EIS it is referencing.113 It also does not identify the portion of the LRA (if any) that purportedly relies on that unspecified EIS.114 And CFUR provides no explanation as to why that unexplained reliance allegedly is not prudent or somehow fails to satisfy an unspecified regulatory requirement. As noted above, vague claims such as this simply do not satisfy the minimum contention basis and specificity requirements because the Board and other parties are not required to guess what argument is being advanced.115 Accordingly, this claim also does not support an admissible contention.

109 Compare Petition, Exh. A (1/18/2012 M 3.3) with ER at 3-72 (listing same).

110 Petition at 17.

111 ER at 3-57.

112 Petition at 21-22.

113 Aside from the 2013 GEIS (which is the current and most recent version of the GEIS and is not subject to attack in this proceeding), the only 2013 EIS referenced in the ER pertains to the Combined License proceeding for Fermi Unit 3. See ER at 10-14 (designated as reference NRC 2013c).

114 ER reference NRC 2013c is cited in only two sections of the ER, in the context of Atmospheric Stability, ER at 3-27, and Microbiological Hazards, ER at 3-235, neither of which has any apparent connection to seismic issues.

115 Seabrook, CLI-89-3, 29 NRC at 241.

24

4. CFURs Claims Regarding Karst Topography Are Vague and Unsupported In Proposed Contention 2, CFUR makes a vague, one-sentence assertion that the LRA did not account for issues related to the Karst topography of the nearby area.116 It is unclear to what issues CFUR purports to refer, what portion of the LRA allegedly did not account for such unspecified issues, what regulatory provision allegedly required that unspecified accounting, or even whether this claim pertains to a safety or environmental issue. As noted repeatedly above, vague claims such as this fail to satisfy the minimum basis and specificity requirements.117 For that reason alone, this claim is inadmissible.118 Additionally, CFURs claim references Exhibit B as alleged support.119 That document, titled Projected zone of karst collapsed features (caves) in the Ellenberger Group, contains a map from a published source that was modified by the addition of: (1) a new shaded box labeled projected karst zone, and (2) a new yellow circle, purporting to depict the approximate location of CPNPP. The only description or explanation of the map or its modifications is provided in the caption, which reads, in its entirety, as follows:

Barnette Shale contours interpreted after data presented by Pollastro, et al.

2007. Yellow circle is approx. location of Comanche Peak reactor.

Contours, reinterpreted by Jerry Bartz 01/09/2023. Relatively thick shales are associated with permeable Ellenburger karst zones. High pressure injected water in karst strongly associated with activating dormant fracture systems and earthquakes in the DFW area. A dormant fracture system in the Lake Granbury (adjacent to the reactor). The 5 2012 earthquakes are within or proximal to the projected karst zone.

116 Petition at 17.

117 Seabrook, CLI-89-3, 29 NRC at 241.

118 CFUR also asserts that Exhibit B illustrates a dormant lateral fracture system adjacent to CPNPP. Petition at

17. But CFUR does not claim that this illustration disputes anything in the LRA. And it is not clear what markings in Exhibit B may or may not depict a dormant lateral fracture system, as no key or explanation is provided.

119 Petition at 17.

25

This terse description is unclear and does not explain the basis for the selective alteration of the published map to depict a projected karst zone beneath CPNPP. It is also unclear who modified the map (CFUR or someone else) or what their qualifications may be.120 And CFUR certainly did not supply an expert affidavit to support these claims.

At best, Exhibit B appears to present speculation that karst theoretically could exist somewhere within the new shaded box; but, it does not articulate any particularized dispute with the LRA. And it certainly does not dispute the detailed site-specific studies of the CPNPP site (including examination of rock cores, geotechnical borings, and other in situ testing) that indicate no evidence of karst features beneath CPNPP.121 Fundamentally, CFURs vague claims fail to satisfy the minimal pleading requirement to

[p]rovide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions . . . together with references to the specific sources and documents122 that allegedly support them. As the Commission has cautioned, the mere presentation of a conclusion without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion.123 Quite simply, the speculation presented in Exhibit B is incapable of satisfying 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v),124 and, [e]ven if true, this claim by itself does not point to an actual material deficiency in the application,125 contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

120 The description claims that unspecified contours were somehow reinterpreted on some unexplained basis by an individual named Jerry Bartz; but, it does not specify who added the projected karst zone box.

121 E.g., FSAR at 2.5-21 to 2.5-22; CPNPP, Units 3 & 4 Combined License Application FSAR, Part 2, rev. 4, ch. 2 at 2.5-46 to 2.5-47 (Jan. 2014) (ML13345A738).

122 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

123 USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 472.

124 Fansteel, CLI-03-13, 58 NRC at 203 (quoting Oyster Creek, CLI-00-6, 51 NRC at 208.

125 USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 472.

26

For all of these many reasons, Proposed Contention 2 is inadmissible.

C. Proposed Contention 3 (Climate Change & Cooling Water Availability) Is Inadmissible In Proposed Contention 3, CFUR asserts that the LRA fails to fully analyze water-resource related effects of climate change on CPNPPs operational requirements.126 In particular, CFUR asserts that the LRA failed to consider future drought conditions and increases in ambient air and water temperatures on Squaw Creek Reservoir potentially impacting the ability to have enough cool water for [CPNPP] to cool down.127 As a general matter, it is simply insufficient for a petitioner to expect the Board to guess what section of the application, if any, is being challenged as deficient.128 Yet, that is exactly what CFUR has done with respect to Proposed Contention 3. CFUR does not even say whether this is a safety contention or an environmental contention, which renders the contention inadmissible on its face. Furthermore, to the extent this contention is intended as a challenge to the ER, it is wholly meritless because the ER squarely presents an environmental analysis of climate change and water availability.

That analysis has not been omittedCFUR simply disregards it. And to the extent CFURs ambiguous challenge could be viewed as attacking some unspecified safety analysis (as opposed to the ER), that claim also would be inadmissible because the safety-related analysis of cooling water availability is part of the plants CLB, and therefore is beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding. These admissibility defects are explained in further detail below.

126 Petition at 22.

127 Id.

128 USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 457.

27

1. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Analysis in the ER In Proposed Contention 3, CFURs primary argument is that [t]he LRA fails to consider the effect on nuclear plant operations related to increased ambient temperatures of air and the effect of higher cooling water temperatures and limited quantities of water.129 CFUR claims that this alleged omission has the effect of omitting material information concerning water usage and anticipated temperatures, and the potential effects on plant operations,130 and vaguely asserts that this alleged omission undermines the analysis of alternatives for generating power.131 However, the LRA does not omit this information. In the Cumulative Impacts discussion in the ER, under the Water Resources subheading, is a subsection expressly devoted to Climate Change (ER § 4.12.4.3), which states, in part, as follows:

Climate change can affect the availability of water resources due to climatic changes such as changes in temperature and precipitation patterns (NRC 2013a). The availability of water is expected to decline due to warmer temperatures, increased evaporation, and increased transpiration reducing average river flows (EPA 2016). However, CPNPP withdraws water exclusively from the [Squaw Creek Reservoir] for operational purposes and uses a once-through cooling system, which reduces demand on water resources. A substantial amount of supplemental water from Lake Granbury and other sources is available under an existing agreement with the BRA (Section 3.6.3). As discussed above, CPNPP operations do not require significant surface water consumption or any groundwater withdrawals, and CPNPP operates in compliance with its permits for water withdrawals and discharges. Because CPNPP uses a once-through cooling system and complies with its permitted withdrawals, its contribution to the cumulative impacts on water availability would be SMALL.

Warmer water and higher air temperatures can reduce the efficiency of thermal power plant cooling technologies. In addition, discharge permit conditions may limit operations for some power plants as water temperatures rise (NRC 2013a). However, the primary function of [Squaw Creek Reservoir] is to act as a cooling water reservoir for CPNPP (NRC 2008c). Although no changes are reasonably foreseeable, if any changes 129 Petition at 23.

130 Id.

131 Id. at 24.

28

were to occur, CPNPP would continue to operate within permitted conditions.132 Clearly, the ER does not fail to consider these issues.133 Thus, CFURs contrary and demonstrably unsupported claims do not identify a genuine dispute with the LRA.134 Moreover, in its discussion of the contention, CFUR cites a newspaper article and an archived page from the EPA website for the general proposition that droughts and increased ambient air temperatures can reduce water availability.135 But those statements are entirely consistent with the information presented in the ER, as quoted above. CFUR does not claim otherwise. As a result of CFURs failure to engage with the relevant analysis or to explain why it is, in any way, inadequate, CFUR has failed to identify a genuine dispute with the LRA.

Ultimately, to the extent CFUR purports to challenge the ERs discussion of climate change impacts, its claims fail to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi).

2. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Safety Analyses, Which Are Part of the CLB and Beyond the Scope of This Proceeding Lastly, CFURs framing of Proposed Contention 3 repeatedly invokes CPNPP operational requirements.136 To the extent CFURs ambiguous arguments were intended to raise a safety challenge, its contention is unsupported, immaterial, beyond the scope of this 132 ER at 4-39 to 4-40.

133 To the extent CFURs claim that the LRA fails to fully analyze this issue could be interpreted as a challenge to the sufficiency, rather than omission, of this analysis, that argument is still inadmissible because CFUR does not even acknowledge the analysis, much less identify any particular assertion and explain why it allegedly is inadequate. Procedural Changes, 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170 (to demonstrate a genuine dispute, petitioners must read the pertinent portions of the license application, state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view, and explain why the petitioner disagrees with the applicant).

134 See Millstone, LBP-04-15, 60 NRC at 95 (if the allegedly missing information is indeed in the license application, then the contention does not raise a genuine dispute).

135 Petition at 23, 24 (citations omitted).

136 Id. at 22-23.

29

proceeding, and fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA on a material issue of fact or law.

Specifically, CFUR suggests the applicant has not analyzed the plants ability to maintain water temperatures consistent with [CPNPP] operational requirements and to have enough . . . water . . . to cool down.137 But that is patently incorrect. The safety-related analysis of this issue is presented in the plants FSAR, which is maintained as part of the plants CLB. In contrast, the safety portion of this proceeding is limited to certain topics related to aging management.138 CFUR identifies no regulatory obligation to duplicate and republish the CLB safety analysis in the LRAnor is there any such requirement in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 (or any other provision of NRC regulations). Thus, any challenges to the omission of this information from the LRA are immaterial, out-of-scope, and fail to raise a genuine dispute with the application, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), and (vi).

For the sake of completeness, Vistra notes that CPNPP is entirely capable of operating safely even under extreme climatic conditions, as demonstrated by the comprehensive technical analyses documented in the FSAR and referenced in relevant portions of the LRA.139 The ER explains, [a]s stated in the FSAR the [Safe Shutdown Impoundment or (SSI)] is designed and constructed to withstand the most severe postulated natural phenomena.140 The SSI, which serves as the plants ultimate heat sink, is a body of cooling water formed from an inlet of the Squaw Creek Reservoir and separated therefrom by a seismic Category I dam. The function of the ultimate heat sink is to dissipate heat . . . during postaccident shutdown and normal cooldown 137 Id. at 22.

138 Indian Point, CLI-15-6, 81 NRC at 347.

139 See, e.g., LRA at 4.7-19 (presenting a time-limited aging analysis related to sedimentation in the SSI and referencing relevant portions of the FSAR).

140 ER at 2-6.

30

conditions.141 The analysis of that function is presented in various parts of the FSAR.142 In simplified terms, that analysis demonstrates that the plant has a robust design that is demonstrably capable of cooling down even under extreme conditions (such as after a postulated accident), taking into account various worst-case assumptions, including the complete absence of Squaw Creek Reservoir (i.e., no makeup water is added to the SSI for 30 days after an accident),143 considering the most extreme meteorological conditions (including water temperature and evaporation rates),144 and postulating 100- y[ea]r drought conditions.145 CFURs claim that this issue is unanalyzed is simply incorrect and entirely unsupported, contrary to 10 C.F.R. 2.309(f)(1)(v).

For all these many reasons, Proposed Contention 3 is inadmissible.

D. Proposed Contention 4 (CEQ Guidance) Is Inadmissible In Proposed Contention 4, CFUR argues that the LRA is deficient because it allegedly fails to comply with certain requirements imposed by recently issued CEQ guidance.146 Specifically, CFUR alleges non-compliance with a notice of interim guidance published by CEQ in the Federal Register on January 9, 2023, under the caption of National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Climate 141 FSAR at 9.2-27.

142 See, e.g., FSAR §§ 2.3.1.2.10 (Site Characteristics / Meteorology / Regional Meteorology / Ultimate Heat Sink); 2.4.11.5 (Hydrologic Engineering / Low Water Considerations / Plant Requirements); 2.4.11.6 (Hydrologic Engineering / Low Water Considerations / Heat Sink Dependability Requirements); and 9.2.5 (Water Systems / Ultimate Heat Sink).

143 FSAR at 9.2-27.

144 Id. at 2.3-8 to 2.3-9.

145 Id. at 2.4-28 to 2.4-30.

146 Petition at 24.

31

Change (Interim CEQ Guidance).147 However, as explained below, CFUR has neither engaged with the relevant GHG discussion in the ER nor identified any unmet requirement in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (governing the contents of applicant environmental reports in NRC license renewal proceedings). More broadly, the Interim CEQ Guidance is inapplicable to the ER.

Additionally, CFUR repeats its claims regarding climate change and water availability, which are inadmissible for the same reasons explained in Section III.C, above. Ultimately, Proposed Contention 4 is inadmissible on multiple grounds.

1. CFUR Disregards the Relevant Analyses in the ER CFUR asserts that the LRA fails to include a quantification of reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions.148 However, the ER plainly presents environmental analyses of GHG emissions. In the Affected Environment discussion in the ER, under the Meteorology and Air Quality subheading, section 3.3.4, titled Greenhouse Gas Emissions, specifically discusses CPNPPs calculated estimates of GHG emissions,149 and an Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summary is presented in table 3.3-11, which provides quantitative values.150 GHGs are also discussed in various Climate Change subsections of different resources areas covered in the Cumulative Impacts analysis presented in ER § 4.12.151 The ER plainly does not fail to discuss these topics. In contrast, CFUR fails to acknowledge or engage with these analyses or articulate any specific reason why those unacknowledged analyses are somehow inadequate.152 147 Id. (citing National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; Notice of interim guidance; request for comments, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196 (Jan. 9, 2023)).

148 Id. at 25-26.

149 ER at 3-29.

150 Id. at 3-42.

151 Id. at 4-38 (as to Air Quality), 4-39 to 4-40 (as to Water Resources).

152 CFUR asserts that certain GHG information was not, but should have been, presented in ER Section 7.2 and Table 8-0. Petition at 25-26. But CFUR identifies no basis for that assertion regarding the location of the 32

Ultimately, CFURs claims are unsupported and fail to dispute the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

2. CFUR Fails to Identify Any Unmet Requirement in Part 51 Furthermore, CFUR asserts the LRA fails to adhere to the strictures of the Interim CEQ Guidance.153 However, CFUR fails to demonstrate that Vistra was obligated to do so. As an initial matter, Vistra submitted its LRA to the NRC on October 3, 2022, more than three months before the Interim CEQ Guidance was published.154 Vistra certainly cannot be faulted for submitting an application that did not consider a document that did not exist at the time the LRA was submitted. More broadly, Proposed Contention 4 also fails to identify any specific regulatory requirement that allegedly is unmet.155 The Board and other parties are not required to guess what the regulatory basis for a contention might be.156 Thus, as a fundamental matter of contention admissibility, CFUR has not identified the basis for its contention.

Additionally, CEQ regulations and guidance apply only to certain agencies of the Federal Government and do[] not apply to. . . applicants for NRC licenses.157 NEPA requires the NRC to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), while the NRCs NEPA regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 require Vistra to submit an ER.158 Different standards apply to information, and CFUR otherwise does not acknowledge the GHG discussions in the ER at pages 3-29, 4-38, 4-39 to 4-40 or Section 4.12.

153 Petition at 24-26.

154 Compare LRA (submitted Oct. 3, 2022), with Interim CEQ Guidance (published Jan. 9, 2023).

155 Wolf Creek, ALAB-279, 1 NRC at 576 (parties are entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being sought (emphasis added)).

156 Seabrook, CLI-89-3, 29 NRC at 241.

157 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-09-10, 70 NRC 51, 87 (2009) (citations omitted); see also Sierra Club v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 995 F.2d 1478, 1485 (9th Cir.

1993) (NEPA does not regulate the conduct of private parties . . . [i]t regulates the federal government.)

abrogated on other grounds 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2017).

158 Compare 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.20 and 51.21 with id. § 51.45; see Levy County, LBP-09-10, 70 NRC at 87.

33

these two related but legally distinct documents. Part 51 governs the adequacy of the ER . . .

not NEPA159 and Vistras ER is not the EIS.160 CFUR faults Vistras ER because it purportedly should have or could have performed evaluations as recommended in the Interim CEQ Guidance.161 But CFUR cites no corresponding provision in Part 51 that required Vistra to do so. Nor does any such requirement exist.

The Commission has explained that, as an independent regulatory agency, the NRC is not bound by CEQs NEPA regulations or guidance162 unless the Commission expressly adopts them by notice and comment rulemaking into 10 C.F.R. Part 51.163 CFUR does not allege that the Commission has done so with the Interim CEQ Guidance. And, in fact, the Commission has not. Thus, the Interim CEQ Guidance imposes no affirmative requirements on the NRC Staff, much less does it impose obligations on applicants or licensees.164 Ultimately, CFURs argument seeks to impose requirements on Vistra that exceed the requirements in NRC regulations. Thus, as a matter of settled law, CFURs argument presents an impermissible challenge to NRC regulations, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, and is not within the scope of the proceeding, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).165 159 Levy County, LBP-09-10, 70 NRC at 87.

160 Id.

161 Petition at 26.

162 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2) CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 444 (2011).

163 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.10(b)(2), (3), 51.14(b), 51.29(a)(1), 51.70(c), 51.88, 51.95(c)(1), 51.124, and Appendix A to Subpart A.

164 Diablo Canyon, CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443-44 (citing Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site), CLI-07-27, 66 NRC 215, 235-36 & n.115 (2007).

165 See Vt. Yankee Nuclear, CLI-07-3, 65 NRC at 17-18.

34

3. CFURs Duplicative Claims Regarding Climate Change and Water Availability Remain Inadmissible As part of Proposed Contention 4, CFUR also repeats its claims from Proposed Contention 3 regarding climate change and water availability.166 The essence of CFURs argument is that there is no analysis in the application regarding potential lack of adequate cooling water.167 But, as with Proposed Contention 3, it is unclear whether this line of argument is intended as an environmental challenge or a safety challenge. Nevertheless, both arguments are meritless and inadmissible because this issue has been analyzed in the LRA to the full extent required by the NRCs license renewal regulations (which CFUR does not acknowledge) and has been analyzed in other documents that are beyond the scope of license renewal (which are not subject to challenge in this proceeding). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Section III.C, which is incorporated by reference again here, these arguments remain inadmissible for failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(vi).

For all these many reasons, Proposed Contention 4 is inadmissible.

IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a), the Petition should be DENIED because CFUR failed to propose an admissible contention and because CFUR cannot reinvigorate its imprecise and thinly-supported claims in a reply.168 166 Petition at 26-31.

167 Id. at 27.

168 La. Energy Servs., CLI-04-32, 60 NRC at 224.

35

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq. TIMOTHY P. MATTHEWS, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esq.

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Washington, D.C. 20004 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

(202) 739-5274 Washington, D.C. 20004 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com (202) 739-5527 (202) 739-5796 Timothy.Matthews@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Vistra Operations Company LLC Dated in Washington, D.C.

This 27th day of March 2023 36

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of:

Docket Nos. 50-445-LR and 50-446-LR VISTRA OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC March 27, 2023 (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing VISTRA OPERATIONS COMPANY LLCS ANSWER OPPOSING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned docket.

Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5274 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for Vistra Operations Company LLC DB1/ 136180961

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23086C086&oldid=3532478"