Revision as of 09:54, 28 August 2018

Text

SECY-12-0062 - Renewal of Full Power Operating License for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
	ML083030030
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	04/20/2012
From:	Borchardt R W; NRC/EDO
To:	Commissioners; NRC/OCM
	Ferrer N B
References
	EDATS: NRR-2012-0014, TAC MD9669 SECY-12-0062
	Download: ML083030030 (8)
	v • d • e

POLICY ISSUE NOTATION VOTE

April 20, 2012 SECY-12-0062

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

RENEWAL OF FULL-POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION

PURPOSE:

This paper (1) requests that the Commission authorize the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) to renew the operating license for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) for an additional 20 years, and (2) informs the Commission of the results of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's review of the PNPS license renewal application (LRA) (Ref. 1) submitted by Entergy Nucl ear Generation Company (Entergy Nuclear) and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) (owner and operator, respectively, of PNPS). In the

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-02-0088, "Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and

4, Renewal of Full-Power Operating Licenses," dated June 5, 2002, the Commission authorized

the Director of NRR to renew operating licenses without prior Commission authorization "for

uncontested license renewal reviews." Since the PNPS application is contested, the staff now

requests Commission approval to issue the renewed license. This paper does not address any

new commitments or resource implications.

BACKGROUND

By letter dated January 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear and ENO submitted the application (Ref. 1)

to renew the operating license for PNPS in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," and 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." In their submittal, Entergy Nuclear and ENO

requested the renewal of Operating License No. DPR-35, which was initially issued under

Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act, for a period of 20 years beyond the current license

expiration of June 8, 2012.

CONTACT: Nathaniel B. Ferrer, NRR/DLR 301-415-1045

The Commissioners Following the submittal of the PNPS LRA by Entergy Nuclear and ENO, the staff initiated its environmental and safety reviews in accordance with NRC regulations. The staff completed the

safety review, presented the resulting safety ev aluation report (SER), "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," to the Advisory Committee

on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and subsequently issued the SER as NUREG-1891 (Ref. 2).

The staff later issued supplements to the SER (Refs. 3 and 4). The staff determined that

Entergy Nuclear and ENO have taken, or will take, appropriate actions to manage the effects of

aging during the period of extended operation as reflected in modifications to the licensing

basis. Therefore, the staff found that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized

by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing

basis for PNPS.

The staff performed its environmental review of the PNPS LRA and issued the final

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) as NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 29, Regarding Pilgrim

Nuclear Power Station," in July 2007 (Ref. 5). The SEIS concludes that adverse environmental

impacts of license renewal for PNPS are not so great that preserving the option of license

renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

DISCUSSION

Staff Performance of Safety Review The staff performed its safety review of the PNPS LRA in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54 using the guidance in NUREG-1800, Revision 1, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License

Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," issued September 2005. The staff issued the

SER with open items in March 2007 (Ref. 6) and issued the final SER, "Safety Evaluation

Report Related to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," in June 2007 (Ref. 7). The SER, published as NUREG-1891 (Ref. 2), presents the conclusions of the staff's

review. The staff subsequently issued supplements to the SER in September 2007 (Ref. 3) and

June 2011 (Ref. 4). The SER and supplements document the results of the staff's review of the

scoping and screening, aging management programs, and time-limited aging analyses, in

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54. The staff concluded that Entergy Nuclear

and ENO meet the standards for issuance of a renewed license, as set by 10 CFR 54.29.

To support the review of the PNPS LRA, Region I conducted a series of inspections at PNPS in

accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 2516, "Policy and Guidance for the License

Renewal Inspection Program," and Inspection Procedure 71002, "License Renewal Inspection."

The results of these inspections verified that the contents of the application, the aging

management programs, the implementation of acti vities required before the period of extended operation, and other activities related to the license renewal of PNPS are in accordance with

docketed commitments and regulatory requirements.

On April 4, 2007, the staff briefed the ACRS subcommittee about the staff's safety review for the

PNPS license renewal. The staff briefed the ACRS full committee on the SER on

September 6, 2007. The staff discussed open items, resolutions, and resulting commitments

during these briefings.

The Commissioners On September 26, 2007, the ACRS issued its "Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for Pilgrim Generating Station." The ACRS concluded that, on the basis of

its review of the PNPS LRA, the SER, and its discussions during the ACRS briefing, Entergy

Nuclear and ENO had properly identified the st ructures, systems, and components that are subject to aging management review. Furthermore, ACRS concluded that the programs

instituted to manage aging-related degradation of the identified structures, systems, and

components are appropriate and provide reasonable assurance that PNPS can be operated in

accordance with its current licensing basis for the period of extended operation without undue

risk to public health and safety. Finally, ACRS concluded that the application for the renewal of

the PNPS operating license should be approved with the proposed license conditions.

On January 24, 2010, Entergy Nuclear and ENO submitted correctly benchmarked reactor

vessel neutron fluence calculations (Ref. 8). The information submitted resolved a proposed

license condition documented in NUREG-1891 (Ref. 2). The staff approved the analysis as

documented in a safety evaluation dated January 26, 2011 (Ref. 9).

Accordingly, the staff finds that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by

the renewed license will continue to be safely conducted in accordance with the current

licensing basis for PNPS.

Staff Performance of Environmental Review The staff performed its environmental review of the PNPS LRA in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 using the guidelines described in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review Plans for

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants," issued March 2000, and its Supplement 1, "Operating License Renewal," issued October 1999.

On April 14, 2006, the staff published a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS and conduct scoping, thus initiating a 60-day scoping period. The SEIS, prepared by the staff for the plant-specific

review, is a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-1437. The

SEIS for PNPS is Supplement 29 to NUREG-1437 (Ref. 5). The staff visited the PNPS site in

May 2006 and held two public scoping meetings on May 17, 2006, in Plymouth, MA. The staff

reviewed the comments received during scoping, reviewed related documents, and consulted with

other Federal, State, and local agencies. On December 8, 2006, the staff issued its draft SEIS for

PNPS, which contained the preliminary results of the staff's evaluation and recommendation.

With the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of filing of the draft

SEIS, the NRC initiated a 75-day public comment period on the preliminary results of the staff's

review. During this comment period, two public meetings took place in Plymouth, MA, on

January 24, 2007. At these meetings, the staff described the approach and the results of the

NRC environmental review and answered questions from the public. The comment period for

the draft SEIS ended on February 28, 2007. The staff evaluated the comments received on the

draft SEIS and completed its analysis, considering and weighing the environmental effects of

the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and the

alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. The NRC issued the final SEIS

for PNPS on July 27, 2007 (Ref. 5). The SEIS concludes that the adverse environmental

impacts of PNPS license renewal are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal

for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

The Commissioners Hearings, Petitions, and Adjudicatory Requests Several requests for hearings and adjudicatory motions were filed in the course of the staff's

review of the PNPS LRA.

Two requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene were filed related to the PNPS

proceeding in response to the Federal Register notice published on March 27, 2006. Pilgrim Watch filed one petition on May 25, 2006, which included five contentions. The Board admitted

two contentions. Subsequently, the Board granted summary disposition in favor of the applicant

on one contention (Contention 3), leaving the other contention (Contention 1) for evidentiary

hearing. The Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) filed the other petition, requesting a

hearing on one contention. The Board denied the AG's petition. The Board's ruling was

subsequently upheld on appeal to the Commission, CLI-07-03, 65 NRC 13 (2007); CLI-07-13,

65 NRC 211 (2007); and on judicial review in Massachusetts v. United States,

522 F. 3d 115 (1 st Cir. 2008).

The initial decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) released on

October 30, 2008 (LBP-08-22), resolved Pilgrim Watch's Contention 1 in favor of Entergy

Nuclear and ENO. The third administrative judge issued a concurring opinion on October 31, 2008. On November 12, 2008, Pilgrim Watch and the Massachusetts AG

submitted petitions for the Commission to review the ASLB decision. The Commission denied

both petitions for review in CLI-09-10, 69 NRC 521(2009).

On March 26, 2010, the Commission remanded to the ASLB a portion of Contention 3 for

reconsideration in accordance with specific instructions. Subsequently, the ASLB partial initial

decision was released on July 19, 2011 (LBP-11-18), finding in favor of Entergy Nuclear.

Pilgrim Watch submitted a petition for the Commission to review the ASLB order. On February

9, 2012, the Commission denied Pilgrim Watch's petition in CLI-12-01.

During the interval between the remand and ruling on Contention 3, Pilgrim Watch filed requests

for hearing on five new contentions-the first two in November and December 2010, a followup to the December contention filed in January 2011, a fourth in May 2011, and a fifth in June 2011.

ASLB orders issued on August 11, 2011 (LBP-11-20), and September 8, 2011 (LBP-11-23),

denied Pilgrim Watch's requests for hearings on all five contentions. Pilgrim Watch submitted

petitions for the Commission to review both ASLB orders. On February 22, and March

30, 2012, the Commission denied Pilgrim Watch's petitions to review ASLB orders LBP-11-23

and LBP-11-20 in CLI-12-03 and CL1-12-10, respectively.

On June 2, 2011, the Massachusetts AG submitted a request for hearing on a new contention.

On November 18, 2011, Pilgrim Watch also submitted a request for hearing on a new

contention. The ASLB orders issued on November 28, 2011 (LBP-11-35), and

January 11, 2012 (LBP-12-01), denied the requests for hearings. Massachusetts AG and

Pilgrim Watch submitted petitions for the Commission to review the ASLB orders. On March 8, 2012, the Commission denied the petition to review the ASLB ruling on the Massachusetts AG

request in CLI-12-06.

The Commissioners On March 8, 2012, Pilgrim Watch and Jones River Watershed Association submitted a request for a hearing on a new contention. On March 30, 2012, the Commission referred the petition to

the ASLB. Renewed Licenses and Adjudicatory Appeals Although a new late-filed contention has been referred to the Board and an appeal of an ASLB decision is pending before the Commission, the NRC is not compelled to await exhaustion of

administrative or judicial appeals before renewing the operating license for PNPS for up to an

additional 20 years (56 FR 64943). As the Commission observed in CLI-08-13, 10 CFR

54.31(c) provides that: "[A] license may be set aside (or appropriately conditioned) even after it

has been issued, upon subsequent administrative or judicial review."

Conclusion The staff finds that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed

license will continue to be conducted safely in accordance with the current licensing basis for

PNPS. Based on a review of the PNPS LRA submitted by Entergy Nuclear and ENO and on

ASLB's initial decision in favor of Entergy Nuclear and ENO, the staff also finds that there is

sufficient basis to support the option of license renewal from an environmental perspective.

RECOMMENDATION

The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Director of NRR to renew the

operating license for PNPS upon his making the appropriate findings on safety and

environmental matters.

COORDINATION

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections.

Copies of this paper will be served on the parties to this proceeding via the Electronic

Information Exchange.

/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/

R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Reference List The Commissioners Renewed Licenses and Adjudicatory Appeals Although a new late-filed contention has been referred to the Board and an appeal of an ASLB decision is pending before the Commission, the NRC is not compelled to await exhaustion of