ML17153A127

C-10 Reply Comments to NRC Staff Motion to Strike

ML17153A127
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/02/2017
From:	Treat N C-10 Research & Education Foundation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-443 LA2, ASLBP 17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 53866
Download: ML17153A127 (2)

Text

June 2, 2017 Via electronic submission UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. response to U.S. NRC staffs motion to strike portions C10 Foundations reply to NRCs motion to dismiss C10s petition for leave to intervene:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 50443 LA2 NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i), the C10 Research and Educaon Foundaon, Inc. (C10) hereby "les its response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sta (Sta) 5/22/17 Moon to Strike Porons of C10s Reply, relave to C10s inial 4/10/17 moon to intervene in the license amendment request (LAR) 1603 from NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) to adopt a methodology to minimize the impacts of alkalisilica reacon (ASR) on concrete structures at Seabrook Staon, Unit No.

1 (Seabrook).

The argument central to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission stas moon to strike porons of C10 Foundaons reply is the noon that C10 cannot expand the scope of the arguments set forth in the original hearing request. In their May 22 moon, sta states, The purpose of this restricon is to ensure the fundamental fairness of the Commissions proceedings for all parcipants because allowing new claims in a reply would unfairly deprive other parcipants of an opportunity to rebut the new claims. (Docket No. 50443LA2, p.5)

The "rst point we oer is that the scope of the arguments set forth in the original hearing request has not expanded; we have only given details called for by NRC and NextEra response to our April 10 peon to intervene. Since C10 has sought a fair hearing with NRC for our concerns regarding the avoidance by NextEra of thorough petrographic analysis of the insitu concrete at NextEras atomic reactor here in Seabrook since at least 2014, it is troubling that Sta would recommend we be denied standing on the very issue that we, as a cizens group headquartered within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), have persistently raised with NRC for many years.

C10 believes that both NRC and NextEra have had plenty of opportunity, and have taken that opportunity, to try to rebut C10s arguments at every turn. Therefore, the statement . allowing new claims in a reply would unfairly deprive other parcipants of an opportunity to rebut the new claims is very clearly a false argument. To the extent that this phrase is cited by NRC as precedentseng based on past ligaon, C10 would argue in response that the enforcement of Jim Crow laws in the South had precedent, as did denying women the right to vote. Simply making a claim of precedent as jus"caon for support of Stas argument is not sucient in itselfif that precedent is either not applicable, not reasonable, or both.

Furthermore, a claim made by NRC Sta that C10 has inappropriately rebued NextEras and NRCs rebuals by giving detail necessary to make that rebual, is worrisome as it relates to the whole process enshrined by the NRC and protected by Staespecially as it relates to fairness in this instance. For Sta to assert that C10 giving detail necessary to defend its standing on the ASR issue, aer being

C10 Foundaon Objects to NRC Moon to Strike, NRC Docket No. 50443LA2 PAGE 2 OF 2 rebued by both Sta and NextEra, is in any way out of line, or expanding the scope of our arguments, is not just, in our esmaon.

We see no reason that Sta, the NRC, and NextEra should not consider the enre peon for leave to intervene, signed and sent by myself: Natalie Hildt Treat, C10s Execuve Director, on April 10, 2017 as the adavit necessary to establish both my direct risk, and indirectly the C10 board members who authorized my signature, and the members who ask us to represent their best interests in this maer.

If the members that C10 represents those who live, work in the EPZ do not have standing to come before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, then who would? The cizens that the NRC relies upon to protect their health and safety are the ones forced to assume the risks associated with Seabrook.

Per NRCs mission statement on your website:

The NRC licenses and regulates the Naon's civilian use of radioacve materials to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment.

C10 Foundaon shares your goals of protecng public health, safety and the environment. We urge you to hold this mission in mind when considering the consequences of your regulatory eorts, and to remember that C10 Foundaon is a group of cizens concerned for the safety of those who live and work near Seabrook Staon, and in ensuring that the place we call home is safe and habitable for future generaons.

While we respect the importance of the regulatory process, we believe the substance of our contenons should be given signi"cant weight in the Boards decision of whether or not to grant our peon for intervenor status in Docket No. 50443 LA2.

On behalf of the board of directors and members of the C10 Foundaon, thank you for the opportunity to "le our reply comments.

Sincerely, Natalie Hildt Treat Execuve Director C10 Research & Educaon Foundaon 44 Merrimac Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 Ph: (978) 4656646 Email: natalie@c10.org with Christopher Nord C10 Board Member and Resident of Newbury, MA C10 Foundation 44 Merrimac St. Newburyport, MA 01950 Ph: (978) 4656646 www.c10.org