ML21029A284

Memorandum (Licensing Board Questions/Areas of Interest and Public Call-In Access Information for Oral Argument)

ML21029A284
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	01/29/2021
From:	Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-338-SLR, 50-339-SLR, ASLBP 21-970-01-SLR-01, RAS 55961
Download: ML21029A284 (9)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Before the Licensing Board:

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. Gary S. Arnold In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR and 50-339-SLR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ASLBP No. 21-970-01-SLR-01 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) January 29, 2021 MEMORANDUM (Licensing Board Questions/Areas of Interest and Public Call-In Access Information for Oral Argument)

In the Licensing Boards January 25, 2021 issuance establishing a February 4, 2021 schedule for an initial prehearing conference/oral argument in this 10 C.F.R. Parts 50/54 subsequent license renewal (SLR) proceeding, we indicated that the Board would provide information to (1) the participants counsel about particular questions or issues they should be prepared to address during the conference; and (2) interested members of the public and the press about how to access the conference via a listen-only telephone connection.1 To that end, the Board offers the following:

1 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference)

(Jan. 25, 2021) at 2 (unpublished).

I. Board Questions/Areas of Interest A. For Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia (collectively, Petitioners)

1. Petitioners contention asserts that an environmental impact analysis should be performed that evaluates the additional proven risk from the 2011 Mineral beyond design basis seismic event, while their reply pleading indicates that the analysis should specifically address the environmental impacts of earthquake-associated reactor accidents during the operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years.2 How would the requested environmental analysis differ from the current evaluation in applicant Virginia Electric Power Companys (VEPCO) Environmental Report (ER),3 particularly in terms of the scope and assumptions for the new environmental impact analysis given that the plant has already experienced a beyond design basis seismic event?

2. Petitioners indicate that [t]he analysis in the [ER] should include a discussion of the cumulative effects of operation during the SLR term, including the effects of earthquakes on

[systems, structures, and components (SSCs)] whose ability to prevent or mitigate earthquake effects may be compromised by the long-term aging effects.4 Please explain how the requested analysis is an environmental analysis, rather than a safety evaluation, so as to fall within the scope of the agencys 10 C.F.R. Part 51 environmental review process.

2 See Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene by [Petitioners] and Petition for Waiver of 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3)(i), 51.71(d), and 51.95(c)(1) to Allow Consideration of Category 1 NEPA Issues (Dec. 14, 2020) at 13 [hereinafter Hearing Petition]; Reply by [Petitioners] to Oppositions to Hearing Request and Waiver Petition (Jan. 15, 2021) at 2.

3 VEPCO, Applicants Environmental Report, Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, at E-3-52 to -53, E-4-88 to -92 (Aug. 2020)

(Appendix E to North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 SLR Application) (ADAMS Accession No. ML20246G698) [hereinafter ER].

4 Hearing Petition at 14.

3. Petitioners indicate that Dominion must fully comply with 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(2) and 51.45(a) by addressing the probability and consequences of accidents caused or contributed to by earthquakes during a second license renewal term.5 Petitioners also acknowledge that Dominion has completed a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) for North Anna that included the 2011 Mineral earthquake but assert that the ER contains no analysis of the probability or consequences of a reactor accident caused or contributed to by an earthquake.6 Please explain why, given the SPRA, the language of sections 51.53(c)(2) and 51.45(a) requires an additional analysis in the ER of the type specified by Petitioners.

B. For VEPCO

1. VEPCOs March 2018 SPRA Summary Report indicated that [t]he evaluation of the Mineral, VA earthquake which included discussions/input from experts in the field [and] a literature review concluded there was no basis to revise or amend the SSC model for the North Anna PSHA.7 The only consideration given to the SPRA in the ER appears to be in determining the level to which the SPRA constituted new and significant information. Are there any other implications for the ER from this evaluation?

2. Relative to the conclusions in the NRC Staffs April 2019 SPRA review letter and its December 2015 confirmatory action closure letter regarding the adequacy of the current North 5 Id. at 13.

6 See id. at 19 (citing ER at E-4-89).

7 Letter from Daniel G. Stoddard, VEPCO, to NRC Control Desk (Mar. 28, 2018), attach.

at 84 (VEPCO, North Anna Power Station Units 1 And 2, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Letter with Regard to [Near-Term Task Force (NTTF)

Recommendation] 2.1 Seismic, Summary Report (Mar. 2018)) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093A445).

Anna seismic design basis,8 how do they factor into the adequacy of the North Anna seismic design basis during the SLR period of operation?

C. For the NRC Staff

1. Please be prepared to explain the terms Design Basis Earthquake, Safe Shutdown Earthquake, and Operating Basis Earthquake and the relationship between these terms.

2. What exactly is meant by the 2011 Mineral earthquake exceeding the seismic design basis of the North Anna facility?

3. The Mineral earthquake occurred in 2011. The generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) revision for nuclear plant license renewal was completed in 2013,9 two years after the Mineral earthquake. Is there any indication that the GEIS revision considered the impact upon severe accidents of an earthquake beyond the design basis, such as the Mineral earthquake?

D. For All Participants

1. The occurrence of the 2011 Mineral earthquake has been used within the Petitioners pleadings in two contexts: (1) as part of the justification for a rule waiver under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.335(b); and (2) relative to their single contention, as new and significant information, the environmental implications of which must be evaluated.

The four-part test for a section 2.335(b) waiver includes the following two requirements:

8 See Letter from Louise Lund, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), to Daniel G. Stoddard, VEPCO (Apr. 25, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19052A522); Letter from William Dean, NRC NRR, to David Heacock, VEPCO (Dec. 24, 2015) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15015A575).

9 1 NRC NRR, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main/Final Report, NUREG-1437 (rev.1 June 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A241).

a. Special circumstances exist that were not considered in the rulemaking leading to the rule; and

b. The special circumstances are unique to the facility being considered in association with the waiver request.10 ER section E5.1 defines what is considered, for this application, to be new and significant information.11 Petitioners seemingly have not challenged this definition.

10 See Pac. Gas and Elec. Co. (Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-15-21, 82 NRC 295, 302 (2015).

11 ER section E5.1, entitled New and Significant Information Discussion, provides:

In this guidance, new and significant information is defined as follows:

(1) Information that identifies a significant environmental impact issue that was not considered or addressed in the GEIS and, consequently, not codified in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51; or (2) Information not considered in the assessment of impacts evaluated in the GEIS leading to a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences of the action than previously considered, such as an environmental impact finding different from that codified in Table B-1.

(3) Further, any new activity or aspect associated with the nuclear power plant that can act upon the environment in a manner or an intensity and/or scope (context) not previously recognized.

ER at E-5-1 (citing NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Preparation of Environment Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supp. 1, at 7-8 (rev. 1 June 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML13067A354)).

All participants should be prepared to address how the 2011 Mineral earthquake does or does not qualify as (1) special circumstances for a section 2.335 waiver; and (2) new and significant information under the ER section E5.1 definition.

2. What is the significance of FLEX mitigation equipment in evaluating the consequences of a seismic event at North Anna now and during the SLR period of operation?

3. The ER indicates that Dominion implemented a long-term seismic margin management plan (SMMP) to address the impact of the Mineral earthquake. The SMMP provides additional assurance that [the North Anna facility] can operate safely in the long term and is capable of withstanding another earthquake.12 What is the significance of the SMMP for North Anna operation during the period of SLR extended operation?

4. Do NRC regulations afford Petitioners any means to challenge directly determinations regarding new and significant information, absent a waiver?

12 Id. at E-3-53.

II. Accessing Listen-Only Call-In Line for February 4, 2021 Oral Argument Anyone interested in listening to the February 4, 2021 oral argument,13 which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time, can access the conference by dialing 888-469-1755 and entering the passcode 9150039, followed by the # sign.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland January 29, 2021 13 The order of presentation at the oral argument will be Petitioners, followed by applicant VEPCO, then the NRC Staff, followed by Petitioners rebuttal.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339-SLR

)

(North Anna Power Station )

Units 1 and 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM (Licensing Board Questions/Areas of Interest and Public Call-In Access Information for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Tison Campbell, Esq.

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Travis Jones, Esq.

Administrative Judge Joseph McManus, Esq.

Anita Naber, Esq.

Nicholas G. Trikouros David Roth, Esq.

Administrative Judge Jennifer Scro, Esq.

Sherwin Turk, Esq.

Dr. Gary S. Arnold Brian Newell, Paralegal Administrative Judge Stacy Schumann, Paralegal E-mail: tison.campbell@nrc.gov Ian Curry, Law Clerk travis.jones@nrc.gov Stephanie Fishman, Law Clerk joseph.mcmanus@nrc.gov Molly Mattison, Law Clerk anita.naber@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.bolwerk@nrc.gov jennifer.scro@nrc.gov nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov sherwin.turk@nrc.gov gary.arnold@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov ian.curry@nrc.gov stacy.schumann@nrc.gov stephanie.fishman@nrc.gov molly.mattison@nrc.gov Dominion Energy Services, Inc.

William S. Blair, Esq.

120 Tredegar Street, RS-2 Richmond, VA 23219 Email: william.s.blair@dominionenergy.com

North Anna Power Station (Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339-SLR MEMORANDUM (Licensing Board Questions/Areas of Interest and Public Call-In Access Information for Oral Argument)

Counsel for Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club, Counsel for Dominion Energy Services, Inc.

and Alliance for a Progressive Virginia Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Diane Curran, Esq. Paul Bessette, Esq.

Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg Ryan Lighty, Esq.

1725 DeSales Street NW, Suite 500 Kathryn Sutton, Esq.

Washington, DC 20036 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com kathryn.sutton@morganlewis.com Digitally signed by Clara I.

Clara I. Sola Sola Date: 2021.01.29 13:55:55

-05'00' Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January 2021.

2