ML071920333
| ML071920333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/11/2007 |
| From: | Abramson P, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-0219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 13848 | |
| Download: ML071920333 (7) | |
Text
RAS 13848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 07/11/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SERVED 07/11/07 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear July 11, 2007 Generating Station)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Clarifying Memorandum and Order Denying AmerGens Motion for Summary Disposition)
On June 19, 2007, the Licensing Board in the above-captioned proceeding issued a Memorandum and Order denying a March 30, 2007 Motion for Summary Disposition submitted by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen).1 On June 29, 2007, AmerGen submitted on behalf of itself, the NRC Staff, and the intervenors in this case - six organizations hereinafter referred to collectively as Citizens2 - a Joint Motion for Clarification [hereinafter Joint Motion] on two principal aspects of the Boards June 19 Order. The Boards clarification is set forth below.
A. Current Licensing Basis The parties request that the Board clarify the following statement on page 8 of the June 19 Order:
1 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying AmerGens Motion for Summary Disposition) (June 19, 2007) (unpublished) [hereinafter June 19 Order].
2 The six organizations are Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation.
[Citizens may challenge whether] AmerGens application of acceptance criteria and analytic methodology to the 2006 [Ultrasonic Testing (UT)] results was inconsistent with past practice. . . . Such a challenge would go to the heart of the admitted contention, because it would be relevant to determining whether Amer-Gens most recent assessment of UT measurements provides a reasonable assurance of safe operation until the next scheduled UT monitoring is performed.
See Joint Motion at 2. Specifically, the parties question whether, based on the above statement, Citizens are permitted to address the interval between the 2006 UT monitoring and the next scheduled monitoring in 2008 (ibid.). The answer to this question is no.
Citizens may not challenge any aspect of AmerGens UT monitoring program that applies prior to the period of extended operation (i.e., prior to 2009). Such a challenge would constitute an attack on AmerGens current licensing basis and is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Of course, as we previously explained (June 19 Order at 6), Citizens may rely upon relevant information arising from AmerGens 2006 UT measurements to support their challenge to the frequency of AmerGens UT monitoring program for the period of extended operation.
But Citizens may not use such information as a wedge to expand the scope of the admitted contention (id. at 6 n.8).3 B. Methods For Analysis Of Ultrasonic Testing Results The parties request that the Board clarify certain language in footnote 10 as it applies to subsequent language on page 8 of the June 19 Order (Joint Motion at 3). In footnote 10, the Board stated:
Uncertainties relating to the corrosion rate may derive from a variety of sources, including the limited accuracy of the measurement method used, the use of a limited number of data points, and the method used to analyze and interpret the data. Thus, in addressing uncertainties, the parties may provide evidence associated with the measurement technique as well as with the interpretation 3
If Citizens wish to challenge the adequacy of AmerGens UT monitoring program for the current licensing term, they may file an enforcement action with the Executive Director for Operations (10 C.F.R. § 2.206).
of the data. The Boards consideration of this information will be for the purpose of determining how much the actual values of thickness can reasonably be expected to differ from the measured values, which, in turn, will inform the Boards judgment regarding whether AmerGen has demonstrated that its UT monitoring plan is sufficient to ensure adequate safety margins.
June 19 Order at 7 n.10 (emphasis added). Thereafter, the Board stated (id. at 8):
Similarly, although Citizens may not challenge the derivation or validity of the established acceptance criteria or the methodology for analyzing UT results, they are not precluded from arguing that AmerGens application of acceptance criteria and analytic methodology to the 2006 UT results was inconsistent with past practice. Such a challenge, if advanced by Citizens, would not be an attack on the validity of AmerGens established acceptance criteria and methodology for analyzing UT results. Rather, it would be an assertion that AmerGens unexplained deviation from established, valid practices casts doubt on the most recent analysis.
Although the parties agree that the June 19 Order precludes a general challenge to Amer-Gens statistical methods for analyzing UT data (Joint Motion at 3), they disagree as to the extent to which Citizens may employ those methods for determining estimates of uncertainty in the measurements themselves and the parameters (such as mean thicknesses and past corrosion rates) derived from the measurements (id. at 4).
At the outset, we observe that the burden is on AmerGen (see 10 C.F.R. § 2.325) to demonstrate that the periodicity of its UT monitoring program - i.e., testing every four years -
will adequately maintain safety margins, such that during the period of extended operation the actual wall thickness will not be reduced below the acceptance criteria. To satisfy its burden, AmerGen must prove that its established technique for analyzing the UT data and calculating the rate of corrosion - i.e., the methodology approved by the NRC Staff and relied upon in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER)4 - utilizes inputs that are sufficiently accurate when account is taken of the associated uncertainties and corresponding variances. See SER Related to the 4
The NRC Staff expressed confusion as to what constitutes an established or valid practice (Joint Motion at 4). In the context of this proceeding, the Board considers the methodology relied upon by the NRC Staff in approving AmerGens application, as described in the SER, as being the established, valid practice.
License Renewal of Oyster Creek Generating Station, NUREG-1875, Vol. 2, at 4-53 to 4-55; id.
at 4-59 to 4-61 (citing Calculation No. C-1302-187-5300, Statistical Analysis of Drywell Thickness Data [hereinafter Statistical Analysis]). This will assure the Board that the drywell shell will not violate the minimum required thickness during the four years between UT measurements, with a sufficiently high degree of confidence - i.e., a 95% confidence level (see SER at 4-60) - based on AmerGens estimates of the mean and the variance.
Although AmerGen bears this burden, Citizens are foreclosed from countering that the methods of calculation or uncertainties contained in AmerGens Statistical Analysis are inade-quate, or that AmerGen must consider additional uncertainties in performing its analysis. This Board previously has rejected such arguments as not litigable (see June 19 Order at 2 n.4, 5-6; LBP-06-22, 64 NRC 229, 254-55 (2006)), and we have admonished Citizens not to attempt to raise them again (June 19 Order at 5-6).5 But it is open to Citizens to argue that AmerGen has not been consistent in applying the above-referenced Statistical Analysis and, accordingly, that AmerGens asserted corrosion rate is suspect (June 19 Order at 8). More specifically, Citizens may seek to demonstrate, for example, that (1) AmerGen has been inconsistent in its selection of inputs - i.e., actual UT measurements - for deriving the mean thickness and corrosion rate, (2) AmerGen has been inconsistent in the manner it has applied its selected uncertainties to those measurements, or (3) AmerGen has inconsistently used the variances in its comparison with the acceptance criteria. Such challenges would not constitute impermissible attacks on AmerGens established Statistical Analysis; rather, they would permissibly open to question whether AmerGens 5
Although Citizens are precluded from attacking, directly or indirectly, AmerGens established statistical techniques, we note that the NRC Staff gave extensive consideration to safety questions relating to these techniques (June 19 Order at 6 n.7).
asserted rate of corrosion can be relied upon for estimating the width of the drywell shell during the period of extended operation.6 It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD7
/RA/
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Paul B. Abramson ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Anthony J. Baratta ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland July 11, 2007 6
Footnote 10 provided examples of uncertainties that AmerGen may or may not consistently have accounted for in determining the wall thickness and deriving the corrosion rate. Any alleged failure to consistently account for stated variables creates an uncertainty in estimates of corrosion rates, future wall thicknesses, and remaining safety margins.
7 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) AmerGen; (2) Citizens; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AMERGENS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication E. Roy Hawkens, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Richard Webster, Esq.
Mary C. Baty, Esq. Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic Office of the General Counsel 123 Washington Street Mail Stop - O-15 D21 Newark, NJ 07102-5695 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul Gunter, Director Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
Reactor Watchdog Project Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Nuclear Information Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
and Resource Service Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20004
2 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AMERGENS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION)
Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner Jill Lipoti, Director New Jersey Department of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Protection P.O. Box 402 Division of Environmental Safety and Health Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 P.O. Box 424 Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Ron Zak J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
New Jersey Department of Exelon Corporation Environmental Protection 4300 Warrenville Road Nuclear Engineering Warrenville, IL 60555 P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Suzanne Leta John A. Covino, Esq.
NJPIRG Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.
11 N. Willow St. Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.
Trenton, NJ 08608 Caroline Stahl, Esq.
Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Environmental Permitting &
Counseling Section Division of Law Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of July 2007