ML20344A291
| ML20344A291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/2020 |
| From: | Curran D Alliance for a Progressive Virginia, Beyond Nuclear, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Sierra Club |
| To: | NRC/SECY |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-338-SLR, 50-339-SLR, RAS 55896, Subsequent License Renewal | |
| Download: ML20344A291 (54) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY
)
In the Matter of )
Virginia Electric Power Co. ) Docket Nos. 50-338/339 SLR North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 )
___________________________________ )
CORRECTED PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION BY BEYOND NUCLEAR, SIERRA CLUB, AND ALLIANCE FOR A PROGRESSIVE VIRGINIA FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING HEARING REQUESTS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.307 and 2.323, Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club, and Alliance for a Progressive Virginia (Petitioners) hereby request the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to grant a 32-day extension of the December 14, 2020 deadline for hearing requests and petitions to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding for subsequent license renewal (SLR) of the operating license for North Anna Units 1 and 2, Dominions nuclear plant in Mineral, Virginia.1 Petitioners seek an extension of the deadline until January 15, 2021. The NRC Staff does not oppose this extension request; however, Dominion has stated it will oppose the request.
Petitioners respectfully submit they have good cause to request an extension, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.307, due to the following circumstances:
The parts of the North Anna SLR application that have been released publicly amount to over 3,000 pages, including a safety application, an Environmental Report, and several consultants reports and attachments. Due to the sheer quantity of material that must be 1
See 85 Fed. Reg. 65,438 (Oct. 15, 2020).
reviewed, Petitioners have found that 60 days is inadequate to prepare a hearing request. 2 Dominions SLR application raises significant, complex and unprecedented safety and environmental issues for which Petitioners need additional time to review the application and related documents and consult experts. These issues include the adequacy of proposed measures for assessing and monitoring the condition of safety equipment for as long as 80 years, a time period for which operating experience is completely unavailable in the U.S.; the safety and environmental implications of operating aging reactor equipment with a seismic design whose inadequacy has been demonstrated by the occurrence of a beyond-design-basis earthquake in 2011; and the significance for Dominions environmental impact analysis of the 2011 Fukushima Daichii nuclear disaster. 3 In order to fully assess these issues, Petitioners must not only review the SLR application, but a large set of NRC and industry documents regarding the history of licensing and safety reviews at North Anna Units 1 and 2; the NRCs research, guidance and decisions regarding the aging, seismic and Fukushima-related issues that have been developed over several decades; and analyses by independent experts.
Petitioners are also seeking expert assistance. The 60-day period allotted for a hearing request is not adequate for these tasks.
Petitioners also seek more time due to the NRCs delay in providing significant information relevant to their concerns. A significant amount of information has been released or is 2
While Dominion submitted the SLR application to the NRC in late August, the NRC Staff did not make a determination that the application was complete enough to warrant substantive review until the Hearing Notice was issued on October 15, 2020. Consistent with the Staffs schedule, Petitioners reasonably waited until October 15 to begin their own review.
3 Dominions Environmental Report makes only one, extremely vague statement regarding the implications of the Fukushima accident, asserting that changes have been implemented at the site in response to Fukushima Daiichi Near Term Task Force recommendations and other plant-specific programs that are risk-beneficial. Id. at E-4-87.
2
expected to be released after the notice of hearing. For instance:
o In 2018, in the SLR proceeding for the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, Petitioner Beyond Nuclear raised concerns about the applicants need to obtain better information about operating experience for the equipment monitoring program. After the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied the admissibility of Beyond Nuclears contentions, Beyond Nuclear appealed to the Commissioners in July 2019. But the Commission did not rule on Beyond Nuclears appeal until November 12, 2020.4 Petitioners seek additional time to review that decision and determine how it will affect the concerns they will raise in this proceeding.
o In addition, the NRC is still in the process of responding to a relevant Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Beyond Nuclear more than two years ago, seeking information regarding harvesting of aging reactor components, an issue that is highly relevant to Dominions SLR application. 5 Documents released by the NRC on October 30, 2020 include slide presentations on that topic by North Anna licensee Dominion and Westinghouse, North Annas designer and builder.6 Petitioners reasonably seek additional time to review these documents, which they only recently received through no fault of their own, and which are highly relevant to this proceeding due to their authorship by Dominion and 4
See Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI 11, __ N.R.C. __ (Nov. 12, 2012).
5 See Attachment A, Letter from Diane Curran to NRC FOIA Officer (Sept. 25, 2018).
6 These slides were presented on March 7-8, 2017, at an NRC workshop attended by international government representatives, reactor licensees, and industry contractors. See Attachment B, Dominion, Kewaunee Station, Insights on Material Harvesting; Attachment C, Arzu Alpan, Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate Radiation Effects on Concrete Properties; Attachment D, Arzu Alpan, Potential Harvesting of Concrete from Mihama Unit 1.
3
Westinghouse. Indeed, an extension should be granted as a matter of fundamental fairness, given the NRCs inexplicable failure to post these documents on ADAMS in 2017 despite the fact that they contained no proprietary information, its failure to provide public notice of the workshop even though it was widely attended by nuclear industry and government officials, and its failure to respond in a timely way to Beyond Nuclears 2018 FOIA request. 7 o Based on statements by the NRCs FOIA staff, Beyond Nuclear expects that future disclosures under FOIA NRC-2018-000831 will include a video recording of the March 2017 workshop on harvesting reactor components, including presentations and panel discussions among the participants. According to an NRC Staff e-mail recently disclosed in FOIA NRC-2018-000831, the workshop was structured to devote a significant amount of time (at least 40%) to a well-balanced discussion of harvesting.8 Thus, Petitioners reasonably anticipate that in addition to the informative content of the meeting slides, the video recording of group discussions will provide important insights into NRC and industry views on the extent to which harvesting is needed in order to understand the behavior of aging reactor equipment.
The current timeframe for preparing a hearing request includes the Thanksgiving holiday, 7
The NRC is slowly and incrementally releasing responsive documents. The agency does not expect to complete its response to Beyond Nuclears FOIA request until the end of March, 2021
- more than two and a half years after Beyond Nuclear submitted the request. See Attachment E, E-mail from Karen Danoff, NRC to Diane Curran, counsel for Beyond Nuclear, re estimated projected completion date for FOIA NRC-2018-000831 (Nov. 19, 2020).
8 Attachment F, E-mail from Matthew Hiser, NRC, to Sherry Bernhoft, EPRI, et al., re:
Harvesting Workshop Sessions 3 & 4 (Jan. 17, 2017).
4
in which Petitioners and their counsel have made plans to spend time with family. Any extension granted by the NRC should also account for religious and New Years observances in December.
Petitioners counsel is balancing the North Anna intervention with professional obligations in other cases, including briefing in a D.C. Circuit appeal, Beyond Nuclear v.
NRC, No. 20-1187 (consolidated with No. 1225).
As the NRC has recognized, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic adds additional time burdens and restrictions on Petitioners and their counsel, including limitations imposed by having to work from home or restrict office hours. Consistent with the NRCs own practices, 32 days constitutes a fair and reasonable amount of additional time to prepare.
Finally, an extension of 32 days at the outset of this proceeding will assist the NRC in conducting an efficient and effective proceeding by allowing Petitioners a more meaningful opportunity to prepare and present their case. And the requested extension will not cause significant harm to Dominion, which has submitted its SLR application well in advance of the expiration dates of the operating licenses for North Anna Unit 1 (18 years before expiration date of 2038) and North Anna Unit 2 (20 years before expiration date of 2040). In fact, 20 years in advance is the earliest time permitted by NRC regulations for a license renewal application. 10 C.F.R. § 54.17(c).
Under these circumstances, Petitioners respectfully submit that they have good cause to request a 32-day extension until January 15, 2021, to prepare and submit their hearing request.
5
Respectfully submitted,
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1725 DeSales St. N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 November 23, 2020 Re-filed December 9, 2020 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)
I certify that on November 20, 2020, I contacted counsel for the NRC Staff and Dominion in an attempt to resolve the issue raised by this motion. Counsel for the NRC Staff stated that the Staff would not oppose an extension until January 15, 2021. Counsel for Dominion stated that Dominion would oppose the motion.
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran 6
ATTACHMENT A September 25, 2018 FOIA Officer Mail Stop T-2 F43 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 BY EMAIL: foia.resources@nrc.gov and BY FOIAOnline
SUBJECT:
Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear FOIA Officer:
On behalf of the Beyond Nuclear, and pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) FOIA regulations, I am writing to request you for access to and copies of records generated or received by NRC relating to past, existing or proposed harvesting of aged materials from operating nuclear reactors and decommissioning or decommissioned nuclear reactors. The harvesting of reactor parts is described in the attached presentation by Hiser, et al., Harvesting of Aged Material from Nuclear Power Plants (RIC: 2018). The date range of the requested documents is January 1, 2015 to the present.
This request includes but is not limited to:
- 1) Internal records generated within the NRC (including but not limited to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Research / Division of Engineering / Corrosion Metallurgy Branch (RES/DE/CMB), NRC Headquarters, and the Office of the Commission;
- 2) Records of external communications between the NRC and other parties, including but not limited to the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute; and
- 3) Records of communications between the NRC and the national laboratories, including but not limited to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
If it is your position that records exist that are responsive to this request, but that those records (or portions of those records) are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA and NRC implementing regulations, please identify the records the records that are being withheld and state the basis for the denial for each record being withheld. In addition, please provide the non-exempt portions of the records.
Definition of Records The term "record" should be construed to mean any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not
FOIA Officer September 25, 2018 Page 2 limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, electronic mail (e-mail), contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases, circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, voicemails, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), electronic and mechanical records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, computer server files, computer hard drive files, CDs, DVDs, memory sticks, and recordings) and other written, printed, typed, or other graphic or recorded matter of any kind of nature. A record bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate record. A draft of a non-identical copy is to be construed as a separate record.
The terms "relating" and "regarding" with respect to any given subject, should be construed to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that subject. The inclusion and description of particular records in this request should not be construed to eliminate other records that are not described in particular detail if they should exist in another format.
Request for Documents in Electronic Format If possible, please provide the requested documents in electronic (pdf) format.
Request for Waiver of Fees Pursuant to federal regulations at 10 CFR 9.41, Beyond Nuclear requests that any searching and copying fees incurred as a result of this search be waived. Beyond Nuclear satisfies all of the NRCs criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 9.41(b) for this FOIA request:
- 1) Purpose of request: The purpose of the request is to gather information on the NRC oversight and regulation of the operational safety and reliability of nuclear power generating stations seeking Subsequent License Renewal, particularly with respect to the value of considering information gained from evaluating the condition of components from decommissioned reactors. The requested information is currently not publicly available through the agencys public document room.
- 2) Extent to which Beyond Nuclear will extract and analyze the substantive content of the records: Beyond Nuclear is qualified to make use of the requested information. Its staff has demonstrated the ability to interpret information and communicate that information in a form comprehensible to the general public. Beyond Nuclear is quoted in national and international
FOIA Officer September 25, 2018 Page 3 media and has been cited as a reliable source of information on NRC oversight and enforcement of regulation regarding the operation of nuclear power generating stations and public safety in electronic and print media including newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Beyond Nuclear is recognized and utilized as a reliable source of information in the broadcast media of television, radio and the worldwide web.
Beyond Nuclear has a working relationship with physicists, structural and nuclear engineers, federal policy analysts and other respected professionals who contribute to the full understanding of the NRC oversight and regulation of operational safety and reliability of nuclear power generating stations seeking Subsequent License Renewal.
- 3) Nature of the specific activity or research in which the records will be used and Beyond Nuclear qualifications to utilize the information for the intended use in such a way that it will contribute to public understanding: Beyond Nuclear seeks the requested information solely to contribute to and help shape the public policy debate on NRC oversight, regulation and licensing of nuclear power stations seeking Subsequent License Renewal. Beyond Nuclear intends to use the information in order to advance the concerns for public understanding of NRC oversight and enforcement of regulation regarding the operational safety of nuclear power generating stations seeking Subsequent License Renewal.
- 4) Likely impact on the public understanding of the subject as compared to the level of understanding of the subject prior to disclosure: The public understanding of the issues regarding NRC oversight and enforcement of requirements for the protection of public safety will be enhanced by the contribution of this information.
- 5) Size and nature of the public to whos understanding a contribution will be made: Beyond Nuclear has a membership of 23,000 who periodically receive communications from Beyond Nuclear. Beyond Nuclear provides resource material to electronic and print media outlets with very broad outreach to a constituency and the interested public. Additionally, Beyond Nuclear maintains a web site at www.BeyondNuclear.org, where postings on this issue will be made available.
- 6) Means of distribution of the requested information: Beyond Nuclear will use its publications and media contacts in both electronic and print media outlets to provide very broad outreach to the public on this issue. Beyond Nuclear will also share information with other interested parties concerned about NRC oversight and enforcement of public safety requirements.
Additionally, Beyond Nuclear will post information on its web site.
- 7) Whether free access to information will be provided: Beyond Nuclear will provide the information without charge to all members of the public. Information from the FOIA requested will be prepared for printed material and electronically posted on the web site for downloading free of charge. Beyond Nuclear will provide a copy of information to all interested public without charge.
- 8) No commercial interest by Beyond Nuclear or any other party: Beyond Nuclear is a nonprofit charitable organization and therefore has no commercial interest in obtaining the requested information. This information is provided to all public requests without charge.
FOIA Officer September 25, 2018 Page 4 The sole interest of Beyond Nuclear is to promote an open policy debate on the quality of NRC oversight, operational licensing and enforcement of requirements for the protection of public safety.
Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this request. We look forward to receiving your response within 20 working days, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 9.25(a). In the meantime, please call me at 240-393-9285 if you have any questions regarding this request.
Sincerely, Diane Curran Counsel to Beyond Nuclear Cc: Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E Diane Curran From: Danoff, Karen <Karen.Danoff@nrc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:17 AM To: Diane Curran Cc: Blaney, Stephanie
Subject:
estimated projected completion date for FOIA NRC-2018-000831 Hi Diane, The estimated projected completion date for FOIA NRC-2018-000831 is the end of FY21, Q2: March 31, 2021.
This date could shift, it depends on when we receive all the responses from the consultations to external parties (other agencies, laboratories within the U.S., and outside the U.S.), but this is our best estimated projection date at this time.
Sincerely, Karen From: Diane Curran <dcurran@harmoncurran.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:03 AM To: Danoff, Karen <Karen.Danoff@nrc.gov>
Cc: Blaney, Stephanie <Stephanie.Blaney@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Received your voice mail this morning re: FOIA NRC-2018-000831 Thanks Karen, That is very helpful and encouraging news.
Diane From: Danoff, Karen <Karen.Danoff@nrc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:01 AM To: Diane Curran <dcurran@harmoncurran.com>
Cc: Blaney, Stephanie <Stephanie.Blaney@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Received your voice mail this morning re: FOIA NRC-2018-000831 Hi Diane, I was in a meeting when you called this morning. My work number is now automatically transferred to my personal cell phone, so I was able to retrieve and listen to your voice mail after our meeting.
I am confirming the estimated projected date of the completion of FOIA NRC-2018-000831 with our FOIA Officer right now to provide you a response today.
On a related matter, late yesterday afternoon I submitted the 7 th interim response of 446 pages to our FOIA Officer for her review. Once she concurs, I can prepare that response for you to retrieve in BOX.
1
Sincerely, Karen Karen Danoff Government Information Specialist, FOIA Team Governance & Enterprise Management Services Division Office of the Chief Information Officer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 301-415-5072 Karen.Danoff@nrc.gov 2
ATTACHMENT F