Information Notice 2010-26, 2010/12/21-NRC Staff'S Objection to Nec'S Notification of Information Notice 2010-26

2010/12/21-NRC Staff'S Objection to Nec'S Notification of Information Notice 2010-26

ML103560235
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/21/2010
From:	Subin L B NRC/OGC
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY/RAS
References
50-271-LR, LBP-10-19, ASLB 06-849-03-LR, M-457
Download: ML103560235 (7)

December 21,201 0 UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) EIVTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) YANKEE LLC ) AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR ) OPERATIONS, INC. ) 1 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) Docket No. 50-271 -LR NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION

TO NEC'S N0-I-IFICATION

OF INFORMATION NOTICE 2010-26 INTRODUCTION The Staff

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("Staff') hereby objects to

the "Supplement to New England Coalition's Petition

for Commission Review

of ASLBP Memorandum and Order" dated December 13, 201 0 ("Notification"). New England Coalition's

("NEC"') Notification to the Commission contends that

the information contained

in "Information Notice 2010-26: Submerged Electrical Cables" (Dec. 2, 2010) ("IN") is new, relevant, and material to New England Coalition's petition for review of LBP-10-19.

' NEC's Notification asserts that NRC Staff counsel was obligated

to notify the Commission of the IN.' But, as discussed below, the

IN does not contain new information. Moreover, the information

in the IN relates to current

operating issues and is therefore neither relevant nor material

to NEC's ' Entergy Nuclear

Vermont Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-10-19, 72 NRC - (Oct. 28, 2010)(slip

op.) ("LBP-10-19).

' Notification

at 3.

pending petition

for review of

LBP-10-19,3 which, for procedural reasons, denied

NEC's Motion to reopen the record

in this license renewal proceeding and add

a new contention on aging management of electric cables. Consequently, NEC's assertion that Commission notification

is required and that the NRC Staff was remiss

in not bringing it to

the Commission's attention lacks merit.

BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2010, NEC filed

a Motion to reopen the license renewal proceeding to

admit a new contention (numbered Contention

7).4 The proposed new contention stated:

[The] [alpplicant has not demonstrated adequate aging management review

and/or time-limited aging analysis nor does the applicant have

in place an adequate aging management program

to address the effects of moist or wet

environments

on buried, below grade, underground, or hard-to-access

safety- related electric cables, thus

the applicant does not comply with NRC regulation

(10 C.F.R. 9 54.21(a) and guidance and/or provide adequate assurance of protection of public health and safety

(54.29(a)[)]. Motion at 8.

On October 28, 2010 the Board issued LBP-10-19 denying

NEC's Motion to reopen

the proceeding

to admit new Contention

7. The denial was based upon

the Board's determination

that NEC's Motion did not meet the timeliness

and "materially-different" outcome criteria

of 10 C.F.R. 99 2.326(a)(I)

and (3) to reopen the proceeding.

Pilgrim, LBP-10-19, 72 NRC at - (slip op. at 20-21). Because the Motion's failure to satisfy

the requirements of

C.F.R. fjfj 2.326(a)(I) and (3) was dispositive, the Board did not consider whether the Motion met

the remaining requirements

for reopening

the record and admission of

a new contention.

Id. at 27. Petition For Commission Review Of ASLBP Memorandum And Order (Ruling on New England Coalition

Motion to Reopen and Proffering New Contention), (November 12, 2010). ("Petition"). New England Coalition's

Motion to Reopen

the Hearing and for the Admission

of New Contentions (ADAMS Accession

No. ML102420042)

("Motion") with attached Declaration

and Affidavit of Paul Blanch (Aug. 20, 2010).

Thus, the issue before the

Commission

is whether the Board erred in denying

NEC's Motion to reopen the proceeding, not whether NEC submitted an admissible

contention.

On December 2, 2010, the NRC issued "lnformation Notice 2010-26: Submerged Electrical Cables." lnformation Notices are

one type of generic

communication issued

by the NRC.~ lnformation

Notices are routinely

issued by the NRC staff to generally inform

the nuclear industry of a significant operating experience that may have generic applicability.

See id. at 7. However, unlike Bulletins and

Generic Letters, lnformation

Notices are not used to convey urgent information, require

a response from the

licensee, do not request

information, or require the licensee

to take any action. See Id.

DISCUSSION

NEC asserts

that the IN contains new information that is relevant and material

to NEC's Petition and

thus the NRC Staff was

obligated

to notify the

Commission

of its issuance. Notification at

2-3. Although the IN deals with the same general topic as the new contention NEC proposed

in its Motion to reopen, the information

contained in the IN is neither new, relevant, nor

material to NEC's pending Petition. First, the information in the

IN is not new. The instances of submerged cables

discussed

in the IN occurred and were documented in publicly available NRC inspection reports issued

between November 2008 and May 2010. See IN at Appendix A (listing the inspection

reports discussed

in IN). Thus, all

of the allegedly new information in the IN was available

months before NEC

filed its Motion to reopen on August 20, 2010.

The statements in the discussion

section of the IN are the same as

or similar to statements in prior NRC documents, such as

See SECY-99-143, Revisions

to Generic Communication Program (May 26, 1999) (ADAMS

Accession

No ML992850037) (describing the types

of generic communications the NRC

issues).

Generic Letter 2007-016;

GL 2007-01 Summary

Rep~rt,~ and NUREGICR 7000.8 Four of the five passages quoted

by NEC in its Notification are

identical to passages in

GL 2007-01 Summary Report, a document hlEC relied upon in its Motion

to reopen, which is

a matter of record and before the Commission.

See Motion at 14. Compilation

of pre-existing, publicly available information into

a single document does not make

the information new.

See Northern States Power

Co. (Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 10-27, 72 NRC - (Sep. 30, 2010)(slip op. at 14-18) (finding that

a contention based

on pre-existing information compiled in

a safety evaluation report was untimely). Thus, offering of

the information in the IN is not new and

is duplicitous.

Second, the IN is not relevant or material. As NEC acknowledges, the IN "does not directly address license renewal applications." In fact, the

IN focuses on current operating

issues, IN at 5-7, which

as the Commission has

plainly stated are outside the scope of license

renewal. See Entergy Nuclear Generation

Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power

Station), CLI-10-14, 71 NRC , (June 17, 201 0) (slip op. at 8-1 0) (stating that license renewal is limited

to age-related issues, not issues already monitored and reviewed

in the ongoing regulatory oversight processes). Thus, the current operating issues

the IN addresses are not relevant

or material to this license renewal proceeding, which is narrowly

focused on managing the effects of age-related degradation during

the period of extended operation. 10 C.F.R.

5 54.30. Furthermore, the issue before the Commission is whether the "eneric Letter ("GL") 2007-01 "lnaccessible

or Underground Power

Cable Failures That Disable Accident

Mitigation

Systems or Cause Plant Transients," (Feb. 7, 2007) (ADAMS Accession

No. ML07360665).

GL 2007-01 "Inaccessible

or Underground Power Cable Failures

That Disable Accident

Mitigation

Systems or Cause Plant Transient: Summary Report" (Nov. 12, 2008) (ADAMS Accession

No. ML082760385).

8 NUREGICR 7000 "Essential Elements of an Electric Cable Monitoring Program (January

2010) (available

at ri~!~; ,~'y!mL. i$;xt": ~vt!~j x.)!.~ :!:!~'<i!?c

-~:<~.!.!t:;y!,~~~3:2~;:,~j:p;~~3~~.~!:;~'z

i)~;: (tji,X.,ls

t:~-~(l~~~.r>~~), 9 Compare Notification at 4-5 (quoting IN

at 5, 5-6, & 7) with GL 2007-01 Summary Report

at 3-4, 2, &4, respectively.

Board properly

denied NEC's Motion for failure to

satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(I)

and (3), not whether NEC's proposed new

contention

satisfied the contention

admissibility

requirements

of § 2.309. Thus, the information

in the IN is neither relevant nor

material to the issue before the

Commission. Finally, because

the IN does not contain new, relevant, or material information to this proceeding, NEC's

claim that the NRC Staff should

have brought the IN to the Commission's

attention

is not supported.

CONCLUSION

The IN did not contain new information that

is relevant and material to

NEC's Petition, and consequently, NEC's assertion that the NRC Staff should

have notified the Commission

of the IN lacks merit.

Counsel for hlRC Staff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

In the Matter

of 1 1 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, ) LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR 1 OPERATIONS, INC. ) (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station) ) ) Docket No. 50-271 -LR CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies

of the "NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION

TO NEC'S NOTIFICATION

OF IhlFORMATlON NOTICE 2010-26" in the above-captioned proceeding have been

served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit

in the NRC's internal mail

system or, as indicated

by an asterisk, by electronic

mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this

21st day of December, 201 0. Alex S. Karlin, Chair Office of

the Secretary

Administrative

Judge Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Mail Stop:

0-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC

20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@,nrc.gov E-mail: hearinqdocket@nrc.gov

William H. Reed* Administrative

Judge Atomic Safety

and Licensing

Board 1819 Edgewood Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 E-mall: whrcville@embarqmail.com

Richard E. Wardwell Administrative Judge

Atomic Safety and

Licensing.Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov

Office of Commission

Appellate

Adjudication Mail Stop:

0-16G4 U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory

Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 0CAAma1I@nrc.gov

Ann Hove, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mall: ann.hove@nrc.gov

Peter C.L. Roth, Esq* Office of the Attorney

General 33 Capitol Street

Concord, IVH 3301 E-mail: peter.roth@doi.nh.qov

Raymond Shadis* 37 Shadis Road PO Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.* National Legal Scholars Law

Firm 84 East 'rhetford

Rd. Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationalleaalscholars.com

David R. Lewis, Esq.* Sarah Hofmann, Esq.* Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq Director of Public Advocacy Elina Teplinsky, Esq

Department of Public

Service Pillsbury

Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

112 State Street - Drawer 20 2300 N Street, NW Montpelier, VT

05620-2601 Washington, DC 20037-1 128 E-mail: ~iofniar~n~~~;~tr:.vt.~~s

E-mail: david.lewis@~illsbun/law.com

matiastravieso-diaz@~illsbun/law.com

elina.teplinskv@~illsburvlaw.com

Matthew Brock* Assistant Attorney General, Chief Environmental Protection Division

Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton

Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA

021 08 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us

Lloyd B. bin Counsel for NRC Staff