Opinion ID: 216911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Acceptance Criteria Contention

Text: Next, Citizens assert that the NRC abused its discretion in ruling that the Acceptance Criteria Contention was untimely. Specifically, Citizens claim that Exelon's April 2006 commitment clarified its change to the acceptance criteria and thus there was new information to support this challenge that was unavailable in 2005. The Board disagreed because nothing in AmerGen's April 4 or June 20 commitments... adds to, or modifies, the acceptance criteria that have been in effect for years. 64 N.R.C. at 238. Affirming the Board's ruling, the NRC remarked that [t]he Board correctly found that the acceptance criteria were not neweven if expanded commitments to apply these criteria were recent. 69 N.R.C. at 272. Significantly, [t]he ultrasonic testing commitments AmerGen made in ... 2006 did not alter the acceptance criteria themselves. The acceptance criteria remained the same as they were in the early 1990s. Id. Because Citizens sought to introduce this contention after the initial filing deadline based on allegedly new information, they must satisfy the requirements for late-filed contentions. The NRC did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Citizens failed to demonstrate that the information upon which the Acceptance Criteria Contention is based was not previously unavailable or materially different than information that was available. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii). The record reveals that AmerGen's predecessor used the acceptance criteria analysis to measure the drywell shell in the 1990s and Citizens' original petition to intervene referenced this practice. If Citizens wished to challenge the adequacy of the acceptance criteriawhen it had been historically used to evaluate the effects of corrosion as evaluated by UT measurementsthe information was available to raise the issue in their initial petition. As a result, the NRC did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Acceptance Criteria Contention was not based on previously unavailable information and it was inadmissible pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i). Section 189(a) does not confer the automatic right of intervention upon anyone. Union of Concerned Scientists v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 920 F.2d 50, 55 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Rather, a hearing must be held on material issues that are specifically and timely raised. Limerick Ecology, 869 F.2d at 724-25. Citizens fail to demonstrate that the NRC's conclusion was an abuse of discretion.