Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Northern States Power Co. (Formerly Nuclear Management Company, LLC.) (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2); Notice and Order (Scheduling Oral Argument), 63023-63024 [E8-25148]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
[FR Doc. E8–25070 Filed 10–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–282–LR and 50–306–LR;
ASLBP No. 08–871–01–LR]
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;
Northern States Power Co. (Formerly
Nuclear Management Company, LLC.)
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2); Notice and Order
(Scheduling Oral Argument)
October 16, 2008.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Before Administrative Judges: William
J. Froehlich, Chairman; Dr. Gary S.
Arnold; Dr. Thomas J. Hirons
Oral argument will be heard on
standing and contention admissibility
issues presented in the hearing request
received on August 18, 2008, from the
Prairie Island Indian Community
(Petitioner).1 This proceeding arises
from an application filed on April 11,
2008, by Nuclear Management
Company, LLC (NMC) 2 for renewal of
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–42
and DPR–60 for an additional 20 years
of operation at the Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
(PINGP).3 PINGP is located near the City
of Red Wing, Minnesota, on the west
bank of the Mississippi River.
The participants are advised of the
following information regarding the
scheduling of the oral argument:
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008.
Time: 9 a.m. Central Time (CT).
Location: Dakota County Judicial
Center—Courtroom 2E, 1560 Highway
55, Hastings, MN 55033.
The format of oral argument,
including the allocation of time to the
various participants, will be determined
at the outset of the session. Generally,
the Board asks that the Parties refrain
from simply rehashing the content of
their pleadings. Rather, the Board
wishes to further explore with the
1 In response to a June 17, 2008, notice of
opportunity for hearing published in the Federal
Register (73 FR 34335), Petitioner timely filed a
request for hearing and a petition to intervene in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309.
2 The NRC has approved the transfer of operating
authority over Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1 and 2, from Nuclear Management
Company, LLC (NMC) to Northern States Power
Company (Northern States). See Order Approving
Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
(September 15, 2008), at 3 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML082521182).
3 The operating licenses for PINGP, Units 1 and
2, expire on August 9, 2013, and October 29, 2014,
respectively. The April 11, 2008, application for
renewal was supplemented by a letter dated May
16, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
Parties the positions they took in their
written submissions. The oral argument
will serve principally to assist the Board
in the discharge of its decisional
responsibilities regarding the
admissibility of the Petitioner’s
proffered contentions. At the same time,
however, it should provide counsel with
a valuable opportunity to clarify for the
Board those issues to be addressed.
The Board has identified 12 specific
issues it wishes the Parties to address at
oral argument. Counsel should arrive
fully prepared to discuss each topic that
is a matter of concern to his or her
client(s). While the following list does
not purport to include all issues that
may arise, it should help to guide the
Parties in their preparation.
(1) Does the NRC Staff still challenge
Mr. Mahowald’s representation, in light
of the Petitioner’s September 19, 2008,
Reply at footnote 1 and Mahowald
Declaration II?
(2) As to Contention 1, what does the
Petitioner allege to be lacking from
Applicant’s Environmental Report (ER)?
Provide citations to any cases,
regulations, or statutes which spell out
the requirements.
(3) As to Contention 2, Applicant,
Petitioner, and Staff should be prepared
to argue whether and to what extent the
MACCS2 code is applicable to the
severe accident mitigation analysis
(SAMA) or the license extension.
Applicant should be prepared to
address ‘‘user inputs’’ to the code. The
Board wishes to explore the extent to
which the calculation that converts
level of contamination to
decontamination cost is controlled by
user input.
(4) As to Contention 3, Applicant,
Petitioner, and Staff should be prepared
to discuss the level of detail with which
Applicant must analyze impacts on
endangered species in the ER. Parties
should provide legal support for their
positions.
(5) As to Contention 4, Applicant,
Petitioner, and Staff should be prepared
to address whether any ‘‘special
circumstances’’ exist that would make
the NRC’s category 1 finding
inapplicable. Petitioner should discuss
the necessity to request a waiver in this
case.
(6) As to Contention 5, Applicant
should be prepared to discuss the
demographics analysis in the ER and
whether the Indian Community was
specifically included. All Parties should
be prepared to identify any
requirements for addressing
environmental justice in the ER that
Applicant has not met.
(7) As to Contention 6, Applicant,
Petitioner, and Staff should be prepared
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63023
to address whether or not the ‘‘coatings
issues’’ are addressed as part of the
Current Licensing Basis (CLB).
Petitioner should be prepared to address
any plant specific data relied upon to
support this contention.
(8) As to Contention 7, Applicant
should be prepared to explain how the
surveillance capsules are used.
Applicant should also be prepared to
address the current vessel surveillance
plan and the proposed enhancements. If
the proposed changes are significant,
when would interested parties have a
chance to review them? Petitioner’s
contention alleges that vessel internals
are subject to embrittlement, that
embrittlement could cause internals to
fail during a loss-of-coolant accident,
and that such a failure could lead to an
uncoolable core geometry. Petitioner
should be able to articulate the facts or
expert opinion within the original
contention supporting each one of these
links.
(9) As to Contention 8, Petitioner
should be prepared to address whether
the ‘‘stress corrosion cracking’’ issue is
addressed as part of the CLB. All Parties
should be prepared to address the
generic question: If an issue is subject to
an Aging Management Plan (AMP)
during the current license period, is it
required to be addressed by an AMP as
a part of relicensing?
(10) As to Contention 9, Petitioner
should be prepared to identify what
piping system(s) it is referring to and
what safety-related function(s) those
systems play. The Applicant should be
prepared to explain the extent to which
the Prairie Island facility has buried
piping, what types of systems utilize
these buried pipes, and which pipes, if
any, are within the scope of license
renewal.
(11) As to Contention 10, Petitioner
will be asked if it has withdrawn this
contention based on the statements in
its Reply of September 19 at page 24.
(12) The oral argument will conclude
with summary statements by the Parties
on the pending motion to strike filed by
Applicant on September 29, 2008, the
NRC Staff’s Response of October 9,
2008, and the Petitioner’s Answer filed
on October 10, 2008.
As an informational matter, the
participants are advised that current
planning calls for the proceeding to be
made available for live viewing via the
following Internet Web streaming feed:
Prairie Island Oral Argument.
Please be advised that this Web
stream will be available for viewing for
90 days after or until Tuesday, January
27, 2009.
It is so ordered.
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
63024
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board.
Rockville, Maryland, October 16, 2008.
William J. Froehlich,
Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E8–25148 Filed 10–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. STN 50–528]
Arizona Public Service Company, et
al.; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1; Temporary Exemption
1.0
Background
The Arizona Public Service Company
(APS, the licensee) is the holder of the
Renewed Facility Operating License No.
NPF–41 which authorizes operation of
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station (PVNGS), Unit 1. The license
provides, among other things, that the
facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Maricopa
County, Arizona.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
2.0
Request/Action
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section
50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ APS has,
by letter dated March 8, 2008, and
supplemented by letter dated September
10, 2008 (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML080790524
and ML082620212, respectively),
requested a temporary exemption from
10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria for
emergency core cooling systems for
light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ and
Appendix K to 10 CFR 50, ‘‘ECCS
Evaluation Models,’’ (Appendix K). The
regulation in 10 CFR 50.46 contains
acceptance criteria for the emergency
core cooling system (ECCS) for reactors
fueled with zircaloy or ZIRLOTM
cladding. In addition, Appendix K to 10
CFR Part 50 requires that the Baker-Just
equation be used to predict the rates of
energy release, hydrogen concentration,
and cladding oxidation from the metalwater reaction. The temporary
exemption request relates solely to the
specific types of cladding material
specified in these regulations. As
written, the regulations presume the use
of zircaloy or ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding. Thus, an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and
Appendix K is needed to irradiate lead
fuel assemblies (LFAs) comprised of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
different cladding alloys at PVNGS, Unit
1. The scope of the staff’s review of this
temporary exemption request is limited
to the current burnup limits; i.e., 60
gigawatt days per metric ton unit (GWD/
MTU). Extending the burnup of these
LFAs will require further NRC staff
review.
The temporary exemption requested
by the licensee would allow up to eight
LFAs manufactured by AREVA NP
consisting of fuel rods with M5 cladding
material to be inserted into the PVNGS,
Unit 1 reactor core in non-limiting
locations during operating Cycles 15,
16, and 17. The use of M5 LFAs will
allow APS to evaluate cladding for
future fuel assemblies that need to be of
a more robust design than the current
fuel assemblies to allow for possible
higher duty or extended burnup.
3.0
Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when
(1) the exemptions are authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
public health and safety, and are
consistent with the common defense
and security; and (2) special
circumstances are present. Under 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances
include, among other things, when
application of the specific regulation in
the particular circumstance would not
serve, or is not necessary to achieve, the
underlying purpose of the rule.
Authorized by Law
This temporary exemption would
allow the licensee the use of M5 LFAs
to evaluate cladding for future fuel
assemblies that may need to be of a
more robust design than the current fuel
assemblies to allow for possible higher
duty or extended burnup. The
regulations specify standards and
acceptance criteria only for fuel rod
clads with Zircaloy or ZIRLOTM. Thus,
a temporary exemption is required to
use fuel rods clad with an advanced
alloy that is not Zircaloy or ZIRLOTM.
As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows
the NRC to grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The
NRC staff has determined that granting
of the licensee’s proposed temporary
exemption will not result in a violation
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, or the Commission’s
regulations. Therefore, the exemption is
authorized by law.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No Undue Risk to Public Health and
Safety
In regard to the fuel mechanical
design, the PVNGS, Unit 1 temporary
exemption request relates solely to the
specific types of cladding material
specified in the regulations. No new or
altered design limits for purposes of 10
CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design
Criterion 10, ‘‘Reactor Design,’’ need to
be applied or are required for this
program. Also, the NRC staff’s review
was limited to the exemption request
and does not address the core physics,
core thermal hydraulics, fuel thermalmechanical design, or the safety
analysis aspects of the LFAs associated
with the Updated Safety Analysis
Report nor their placement in a nonlimiting core location. APS has notified
the staff of their intent to evaluate the
LFAs as a change to the plant in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
Furthermore, APS has provided
information related to their planned
evaluation of the LFAs as part of their
exemption request (letter dated March 8,
2008) and in response to RAIs (letter
dated September 10, 2008).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria
for ECCS performance. The staff’s
review and approval of topical report
BAW–10227P–A, ‘‘Evaluation of
Advanced Cladding and Structural
Material (M5) in PWR Reactor Fuel,’’
dated February 4, 2000 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML003681479 and
ML003681490), addressed all of the
important aspects of M5 with respect to
ECCS performance requirements: (1)
Applicability of 10 CFR 50.46(b) fuel
acceptance criteria, (2) M5 material
properties including fuel rod ballooning
and rupture strains, and (3) steam
oxidation kinetics and applicability of
Baker-Just weight gain correlation. A
subsequent NRC-approved topical
report, BAW–10240P–A, ‘‘Incorporation
of M5 Properties in Framatome ANP
Approved Methods,’’ May 5, 2004
(ADAMS Accession No. ML041260560),
further addressed M5 material
properties with respect to loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) applications.
Based on an ongoing LOCA research
program at Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL) and Research Information Letter
0801, titled, ‘‘Technical Basis for
Revision of Embrittlement Criteria in 10
CFR 50.46,’’ dated May 30, 2008
(ADAMS Accession No.
ML0813502251), cladding corrosion
(and associated hydrogen pickup) has a
significant impact on post-quench
ductility. Pre-test characterization of
irradiated M5 fuel cladding segments at
ANL provide further evidence of
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63023-63024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25148]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-282-LR and 50-306-LR; ASLBP No. 08-871-01-LR]
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Northern States Power Co.
(Formerly Nuclear Management Company, LLC.) (Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2); Notice and Order (Scheduling Oral
Argument)
October 16, 2008.
Before Administrative Judges: William J. Froehlich, Chairman; Dr. Gary
S. Arnold; Dr. Thomas J. Hirons
Oral argument will be heard on standing and contention
admissibility issues presented in the hearing request received on
August 18, 2008, from the Prairie Island Indian Community
(Petitioner).\1\ This proceeding arises from an application filed on
April 11, 2008, by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) \2\ for
renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 for an
additional 20 years of operation at the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP).\3\ PINGP is located near the
City of Red Wing, Minnesota, on the west bank of the Mississippi River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In response to a June 17, 2008, notice of opportunity for
hearing published in the Federal Register (73 FR 34335), Petitioner
timely filed a request for hearing and a petition to intervene in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309.
\2\ The NRC has approved the transfer of operating authority
over Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, from
Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) to Northern States Power
Company (Northern States). See Order Approving Transfer of License
and Conforming Amendment (September 15, 2008), at 3 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML082521182).
\3\ The operating licenses for PINGP, Units 1 and 2, expire on
August 9, 2013, and October 29, 2014, respectively. The April 11,
2008, application for renewal was supplemented by a letter dated May
16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The participants are advised of the following information regarding
the scheduling of the oral argument:
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008.
Time: 9 a.m. Central Time (CT).
Location: Dakota County Judicial Center--Courtroom 2E, 1560 Highway
55, Hastings, MN 55033.
The format of oral argument, including the allocation of time to
the various participants, will be determined at the outset of the
session. Generally, the Board asks that the Parties refrain from simply
rehashing the content of their pleadings. Rather, the Board wishes to
further explore with the Parties the positions they took in their
written submissions. The oral argument will serve principally to assist
the Board in the discharge of its decisional responsibilities regarding
the admissibility of the Petitioner's proffered contentions. At the
same time, however, it should provide counsel with a valuable
opportunity to clarify for the Board those issues to be addressed.
The Board has identified 12 specific issues it wishes the Parties
to address at oral argument. Counsel should arrive fully prepared to
discuss each topic that is a matter of concern to his or her client(s).
While the following list does not purport to include all issues that
may arise, it should help to guide the Parties in their preparation.
(1) Does the NRC Staff still challenge Mr. Mahowald's
representation, in light of the Petitioner's September 19, 2008, Reply
at footnote 1 and Mahowald Declaration II?
(2) As to Contention 1, what does the Petitioner allege to be
lacking from Applicant's Environmental Report (ER)? Provide citations
to any cases, regulations, or statutes which spell out the
requirements.
(3) As to Contention 2, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to argue whether and to what extent the MACCS2 code is
applicable to the severe accident mitigation analysis (SAMA) or the
license extension. Applicant should be prepared to address ``user
inputs'' to the code. The Board wishes to explore the extent to which
the calculation that converts level of contamination to decontamination
cost is controlled by user input.
(4) As to Contention 3, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to discuss the level of detail with which Applicant must
analyze impacts on endangered species in the ER. Parties should provide
legal support for their positions.
(5) As to Contention 4, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to address whether any ``special circumstances'' exist that
would make the NRC's category 1 finding inapplicable. Petitioner should
discuss the necessity to request a waiver in this case.
(6) As to Contention 5, Applicant should be prepared to discuss the
demographics analysis in the ER and whether the Indian Community was
specifically included. All Parties should be prepared to identify any
requirements for addressing environmental justice in the ER that
Applicant has not met.
(7) As to Contention 6, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to address whether or not the ``coatings issues'' are
addressed as part of the Current Licensing Basis (CLB). Petitioner
should be prepared to address any plant specific data relied upon to
support this contention.
(8) As to Contention 7, Applicant should be prepared to explain how
the surveillance capsules are used. Applicant should also be prepared
to address the current vessel surveillance plan and the proposed
enhancements. If the proposed changes are significant, when would
interested parties have a chance to review them? Petitioner's
contention alleges that vessel internals are subject to embrittlement,
that embrittlement could cause internals to fail during a loss-of-
coolant accident, and that such a failure could lead to an uncoolable
core geometry. Petitioner should be able to articulate the facts or
expert opinion within the original contention supporting each one of
these links.
(9) As to Contention 8, Petitioner should be prepared to address
whether the ``stress corrosion cracking'' issue is addressed as part of
the CLB. All Parties should be prepared to address the generic
question: If an issue is subject to an Aging Management Plan (AMP)
during the current license period, is it required to be addressed by an
AMP as a part of relicensing?
(10) As to Contention 9, Petitioner should be prepared to identify
what piping system(s) it is referring to and what safety-related
function(s) those systems play. The Applicant should be prepared to
explain the extent to which the Prairie Island facility has buried
piping, what types of systems utilize these buried pipes, and which
pipes, if any, are within the scope of license renewal.
(11) As to Contention 10, Petitioner will be asked if it has
withdrawn this contention based on the statements in its Reply of
September 19 at page 24.
(12) The oral argument will conclude with summary statements by the
Parties on the pending motion to strike filed by Applicant on September
29, 2008, the NRC Staff's Response of October 9, 2008, and the
Petitioner's Answer filed on October 10, 2008.
As an informational matter, the participants are advised that
current planning calls for the proceeding to be made available for live
viewing via the following Internet Web streaming feed: Prairie Island
Oral Argument.
Please be advised that this Web stream will be available for
viewing for 90 days after or until Tuesday, January 27, 2009.
It is so ordered.
[[Page 63024]]
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Rockville, Maryland, October 16, 2008.
William J. Froehlich,
Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E8-25148 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P