ML060310237
| ML060310237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/30/2006 |
| From: | Fruchter D NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Fruchter, Daniel 415-1575 | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 11129 | |
| Download: ML060310237 (7) | |
Text
January 30, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
)
Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
)
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARDS ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING INTRODUCTION On January 23, 2006, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued an Order (Directing Supplemental Briefing on Hearing Request) (Order) directing the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) to file supplemental briefs regarding NJDEPs second proposed contention advanced in its Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Petition), filed November 14, 2005. See Order at 2-3. The Staff hereby files its response to the Boards Order.
DISCUSSION NJDEPs second proposed contention concerns the cumulative usage factor (CUF) used by AmerGen in its license renewal application (LRA). See Petition at 6. NJDEP contends that AmerGens use of a CUF of 1.0 for metal fatigue evaluations for the reactor coolant pressure boundary and associated components, rather than the 0.8 CUF used at the time of Oyster Creeks initial licensing, violates NRC regulations. See Petition at 6; Order at 2.
NJDEP contends that 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.55a©)(4) and 54.21(a)(3) require that AmerGen use a CUF of 0.8 and not the 1.0 CUF specified by a more recent edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
1 As the Staff notes in its Answer to NJDEP, the purpose of 10 C.F.R. § 50.55a(c)(4), which is cited by NJDEP, is to permit a licensee to make use of the original construction code if the licensee so chooses. See Final Rule, Industry Codes and Standards, Amended Requirements, 64 Fed. Reg. 51,370, 51,380-81 (1999). However, NRC regulations permit a licensee to voluntarily update to a later version of the ASME code that has been endorsed by the NRC and incorporated into section 50.55a by reference. See 10 C.F.R. § 50.55a; 64 Fed. Reg. at 51,380-81; see also NRC Staff Answer to Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene of the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, dated December 20, 2005 (replacement copy) at 16-17.
2 Current licensing basis (CLB) is defined in the NRCs license renewal regulations, in part, as:
the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensees written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of the licensee that are docketed in effect).
10 C.F.R. § 54.3(a).
See Petition at 6-7.1 The Board, in its Order, notes that Exhibit 1 of AmerGens Answer states that AmerGen intends to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and hence its licensing basis, to incorporate an updated metal fatigue analysis limit for reactor coolant pressure boundary components consistent with the current requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.55a by changing the CUF from 0.8 to 1.0. See Order at 3. The Board expresses its view that until this revision is implemented, the license renewal application is not based upon the now-effective CLB [current licensing basis] as required by 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3), and directs that NJDEP, AmerGen, and the Staff provide additional briefing addressing the requirements of the governing regulations with regard to this issue. Id.
The Board, in its Order, states its belief that 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3) requires the use of the CUF used in the now-effective CLB. See Order at 3. However, this interpretation of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3) is incorrect, as § 54.21(a)(3) merely requires that a licensee demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the CLB for the period of extended operation. 2 It does not require that the LRA be based on the CLB as of the time the LRA is submitted, and does not prevent a licensee or the NRC from making changes to the CLB in the course of the renewal review process or during the period of extended operation.
In fact, NRC regulations explicitly contemplate changes to the CLB during the license renewal review process. NRC regulations provide:
(b) CLB changes during NRC review of the application. Each year following submittal of the license renewal application and at least 3 months before scheduled completion of the NRC review, an amendment to the renewal application must be submitted that identifies any change to the CLB of the facility that materially affects the contents of the license renewal application, including the FSAR supplement.
10 C.F.R. § 54.21(b). Therefore, NRC regulations do contemplate changes to the CLB after the LRA is submitted.
In its proposed rule for license renewal, the Commission proposed that the CLB become fixed at the time of application and remain fixed during the review. See Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 56 Fed. Reg. 64,943, 64,953 (1991). The Commission, however, changed course in the final rule and revised the definition of the CLB to remove the restriction that fixed the CLB as of the time the renewal application was submitted.
See id. at 64,649, 64,653-54; 10 C.F.R. § 54.3. In doing so, the Commission acknowledged the expectation that a licensee could make or request changes to the CLB during the license renewal review process and provided for that in the regulation. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,953-54; 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(b).
When a licensee makes or requests changes to the CLB after submitting its LRA, these changes must be made under existing regulatory practice, e.g., under 10 C.F.R. § 50.59.
See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,653-54. Renewal applicants are required to update the application by describing changes in the licensing basis, explaining any additional measures needed to ensure that the effects of aging can be managed during the renewal term, and any change in the effectiveness of programs credited for managing age-related degradation. Id. Whether a licensee has correctly identified the potential impact of such changes in its renewal application may be litigated in a hearing on the renewal application. Id.
The Board cites 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3), but this provision is not directly applicable to NJDEPs concern regarding the CUF. Rather, it is 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c), relating to time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs), that is applicable here. TLAAs are defined in § 54.3 as those licensee calculations and analyses that, among other things, are contained or incorporated by reference in the CLB. Section 54.21(c) requires a list of TLAAs and a demonstration that each TLAA meets either § 54.21(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii). A program to manage aging effects under
§ 54.21(c)(1)(iii) is required only if the applicant cannot demonstrate under sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) that the TLAA remains valid for the period of extended operation. Section 54.21(d) is applicable to both §§ 54.21(a) and (c), and requires an FSAR supplement containing a summary description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging and the evaluations of time-limited aging analyses for the period of extended operation determined by paragraphs (a) and (c).
AmerGen has committed to making a change to its CLB and will update its UFSAR to reflect a CUF of 1.0 by the beginning of the period of extended operation. See Letter from C.N. Swenson, Additional Commitments Associated with Application for Renewed Operating Licence - Oyster Creek Generating Station, dated December 9, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053490219).
That commitment will become part of the CLB as it is defined in NRC license renewal regulations, see 10 C.F.R. § 54.3(a), upon AmerGens updating its UFSAR. See 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(d).
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Daniel Hugo Fruchter Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of January, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
)
Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARDS ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system as indicated by an asterisk, or by electronic mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, as indicated by double asterisk, this 30th day of January, 2006.
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair*
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ERH@nrc.gov Anthony J. Baratta*
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 AJB5@nrc.gov Paul B. Abramson*
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 PBA@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary*
ATTN: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Debra Wolf*
Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DAW1@nrc.gov Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner**
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 402 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Commissioner.Campbell@dep.state.nj.us Jill Lipoti, Director**
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Safety and Health P.O. Box 424 Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Jill.Lipoti@dep.state.nj.us Michele R. Donato, Esq.**
P.O. Box 145 106 Grand Central Avenue Lavallette, NJ 08735 mdonato@MicheleDonatoEsq.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.**
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com Ron Zak**
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Nuclear Engineering P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Ron.Zak@dep.state.nj.us Suzanne Leta**
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group 11 N. Willow St.
Trenton, NJ 08608 sleta@njpirg@org Donald Silverman, Esq.**
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 dsilverman@morganlewis.com Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.**
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 apolonsky@morganlewis.com Paul Gunter, Director**
Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information And Resource Service 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 pgunter@nirs.org J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.**
Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com John A. Covino, Esq.**
Deputy Attorney General Division of Law Environmental Permitting and Counseling Section Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 john.covino@dol.lps.state.nj.us Richard Webster, Esq.**
Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102-5695 rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu
/RA/
Daniel Hugo Fruchter Counsel for NRC Staff