ML19354C278
| ML19354C278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/2019 |
| From: | Andrew Averbach NRC/OGC |
| To: | Dwyer M US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit |
| References | |
| 11539884, 18-1, 19-72670 | |
| Download: ML19354C278 (4) | |
Text
(1 of 4)
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11539884, DktEntry: 18-1, Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 20, 2019 BY ELECTRONIC FILING Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 7th Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Public Watchdogs v. NRC, No. 19-72670 - Notice of Supplemental Authority
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Respondent United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on behalf of Federal Respondents, informs the Court of a development before the agency in this matter.
The Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in this case relates to a request filed by Public Watchdogs before the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 (2.206 Petition) for the suspension of certain decommissioning activities at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Public Watchdogs asserts that the agency has unreasonably delayed its response to the 2.206 Petition.
On December 18, 2019, the NRC informed Public Watchdogs that a Petition Review Board convened by the agency had preliminary determined not to accept the 2.206 Petition for review because the issues raised by Public Watchdogs have already been the subject of NRC staff review and do not raise concerns that the NRC staff has not considered and resolved. The NRC referred to its historical and ongoing oversight and enforcement efforts related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS, as detailed on pages 20-30 of response to the Mandamus Petition that the NRC and the United States filed in this matter on December 9,
(2 of 4)
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11539884, DktEntry: 18-1, Page 2 of 2 M. Dwyer 2019. The NRC further offered Public Watchdogs the opportunity to clarify or supplement its 2.206 Petition in a public meeting before the Petition Review Board makes a final recommendation. A copy of the e-mail sent by the NRC to Public Watchdogs accompanies this letter.
At pages 13-16 of their response to the Mandamus Petition, the NRC and the United States argued that he agencys response to the 2.206 Petition has not been unreasonably delayed. The agencys issuance of a preliminary determination this week provides further support for that position.
Respectfully,
/s/ Andrew P. Averbach Solicitor Encl.: E-mail from Z. Cruz Perez, NRC to C. La Bella (Dec. 18, 2019)
(3 of 4)
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11539884, DktEntry: 18-2, Page 1 of 2 From: Cruz Perez, Zahira To: charles.labella@btlaw.com; zachary.heller@btlaw.com; randy.gordon@btlaw.com; lwohlford@btlaw.com; eric.beste@btlaw.com Cc: Averbach, Andrew
Subject:
2.206 Petition -Result of Initial Assessment Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 5:35:00 PM Hi Everyone, The Petition Review Board (PRB) has evaluated the petition you submitted on September 24, 2019, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, regarding decommissioning activities at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The PRBs evaluation assessed whether the petition meets the applicable acceptance criteria in NRCs Management Directive (MD) 8.11. Based on the PRBs initial assessment, it appears that all of the issues raised in your petition have already been the subject of NRC staff review and do not raise concerns that the NRC staff has not considered and resolved. Accordingly, as discussed further below, our preliminary decision is to not accept the petition for review.
The NRC Staff has continued to carefully regulate the licensees decommissioning activities at SONGS, including through its review of the fuel storage facility design, inspections (encompassing the physical facility as well as the licensees operational performance), and appropriate enforcement actions. More specifically, the NRC performed a thorough review of the UMAX Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) design used at SONGS, a design the NRC approved in 2017 through a public rulemaking (ML16341B061). In addition, NRC Staff from Headquarters and Region IV continually perform oversight to ensure that the storage of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS does not pose a threat to public health and safety. NRC inspections of decommissioning activities at SONGS are documented in inspection reports that are publicly available. See for example, ML18200A400 and ML19316A762. The Staff has also specifically considered the events described in your petition regarding the licensees fuel loading operations and potential scratching of the fuel canisters. See for example, ML19190A217. The NRCs regulatory response included detailed assessment of the significance of the events, specific enforcement actions, and subsequent consideration of the licensees corrective actions.
As a result, the NRC Staff remains confident that reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety can be maintained for as long as fuel is stored in accordance with the requirements of the SONGS license, the certificate of compliance for the Holtec system (and any other licensed systems that may be implemented in the future at the SONGS site), and other applicable requirements. And the agency is committed to ensuring the continuation of its ongoing regulatory oversight of the facility, as reflected in the NRCs rigorous review of the fuel storage design used at SONGS, together with its well-documented inspection and enforcement activities at the site.
Regarding your concern about environmental impacts of the decommissioning activities, NRC Staff concluded in the review of the SONGS Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (ML15204A383) that these activities are bounded by the previously issued NUREG-0586, "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities" and its supplements and did not find any deviations from the previously issued Environmental Statement for SONGS (ML18239A414). Having considered the results of recent inspections and the NRCs environmental review, the PRBs initial assessment is that your petition does not meet the acceptance criteria in MD
(4 of 4)
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11539884, DktEntry: 18-2, Page 2 of 2 8.11 Section III.C.1(b) because the issues raised in the petition have been the subject of a facility-specific or generic NRC staff review and none of the circumstances in Section III.C.1(b)(ii) applies.
However, in accordance with MD 8.11, we want to offer you the opportunity to clarify or supplement the petition in a public meeting with the PRB. If accepted, your meeting with the PRB would be conducted consistent with the format described in MD 8.11 Section III.F (in part - you may provide any relevant additional explanation and support for your request either in person or via another agreed-upon arrangement). The PRB will consider your statements made at the meeting or teleconference, along with the original petition, in making its final recommendation on whether to accept the petition for review according to the criteria in MD 8.11,Section III.C.1.
Please indicate by December 31, 2019 whether you wish to have this public meeting before we close the petition.
Thank You, Zahira Cruz Zahira Cruz Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Reactor Decommissioning Branch Rockville, MD 20852