Virginia Electric and Power Company North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Exemption, 17715-17717 [2011-7455]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
The report characterized a variety of
issues ranging from policy issues to
communications improvement
opportunities. The complete report may
be found under ADAMS Accession No.
ML101680435. The GTF determined
that the NRC is accomplishing its stated
mission of protecting public health,
safety, and protection of the
environment through its response to
groundwater leaks/spills. Within the
current regulatory structure, the NRC is
correctly applying requirements and
properly characterizing the relevant
issues. However, the GTF reported that
there are further observations,
conclusions, and recommendations that
the NRC should consider in its oversight
of licensed material outside of its design
confinement.
The EDO appointed a group of NRC
senior executives to review the report
and consider its findings. Over the past
several months, the group has been
reviewing the GTF final report,
including the conclusions,
recommendations, and their bases. They
identified conclusions and
recommendations that do not involve
policy issues, and tasked the NRC staff
to address them. They have also
identified policy issues, are developing
options to address them, and will send
a policy paper to the Commission
discussing those options.
The NRC held a public workshop on
October 4, 2010, with external
stakeholders to discuss the findings of
the GTF report and to receive input on
the potential policy issues. In addition,
a request for public comment was
published in the Federal Register (75
FR 57987, September 23, 2010). These
efforts help to ensure the NRC is
considering the right issues on which to
focus its attention as it moves forward.
The transcript from this meeting is
available on the NRC’s Web site at:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/fact-sheets/buried-pipestritium.html.
III. Conclusion
Based on the information summarized
above, the NRC staff concludes that the
activities requested by the Petitioner
have been completed, with the
exception of preventing the restart of
Vermont Yankee. Therefore, NRR
concludes that the Petition has been
granted in part and denied in part.
Related documentation includes an NRC
letter to Entergy on increased oversight
dated April 8, 2010, ADAMS Accession
No. ML100990458.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a
copy of this Director’s Decision will be
filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:59 Mar 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
review. As provided for by this
regulation, the Decision will constitute
the final action of the Commission 25
days after the date of the Decision
unless the Commission, on its own
motion, institutes a review of the
Decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27 day
of January 2011.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
ATTACHMENT TO THE FINAL
DIRECTOR’S DECISION; DISCUSSION OF
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
DIRECTOR’S DECISION FROM THE
LICENSEE, AND THE NRC STAFF
RESPONSES
By e-mail dated December 21, 2010,
ADAMS Accession No. ML110050341, the
licensee provided comments on the proposed
Director’s Decision on the Petition filed by
Congressman Paul Hodes pursuant to 10 CFR
2.206, ‘‘Requests for action under this
subpart.’’ The licensee’s comments and
corresponding response from the NRC staff
are provided below:
Comment 1:
Section II, ‘‘Discussion:
a) GZ–3 is actually located approximately
70 ft from the Connecticut River. Actual
distance depends on river stage.
b) The highest reading from any
monitoring well has been 2.52 million pci/L
(measured on 2/8/2010) from monitoring
well GZ–10.
c) On June 8th, Entergy reported a leak in
the reactor building (June 8th was the date
that RHR relief valve leakage was discovered.
This required a 4-hour notification to the
NRC).
The NRC Staff Response:
Revised the Director’s Decision to reflect
the comments.
Comment 2:
A. The Tritiated Groundwater Remediation
Process:
a) Monitoring well GZ–15 was utilized for
groundwater extraction from July 28, 2010,
until September 2, 2010, and again from
October 28, 2010, until November 8, 2010.
b) As of December 21, 2010, Entergy has
pumped 307,000 gallons of groundwater.
c) About 298,000 gallons of water was
shipped offsite for disposal and 9,000 gallons
was returned to the station’s liquid
radioactive waste system for in-plant use.
d) Evaluation of continued extraction is ongoing.
e) On March 23, 2010, Entergy installed an
extraction well (GZ–EW1). (The well was
installed on 3/23 and placed in service on 3/
24).
The NRC Staff Response:
Revised the Director’s Decision to reflect
the comments.
[FR Doc. 2011–7453 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17715
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC–
2010–0283]
Virginia Electric and Power Company
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and
2; Exemption
1.0
Background
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(VEPCO, the licensee) is the holder of
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–4
and NPF–7 which authorizes operation
of the North Anna Power Station, Units
1 and 2 (NAPS). The license provides,
among other things, that the facility is
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Louisa County,
Virginia.
2.0
Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section
50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria for
emergency core cooling systems [ECCS]
for light-water nuclear power reactors,’’
requires that each power reactor meet
the acceptance criteria for ECCS
provided therein for zircaloy or
ZIRLO TM cladding. Appendix K of 10
CFR Part 50, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’
requires the rate of energy release,
hydrogen generation, and cladding
oxidation from the metal/water reaction
to be calculated using the Baker-Just
equation (Baker, L., Just, L.C., ‘‘Studies
of Metal Water Reactions at High
Temperatures, III. Experimental and
Theoretical Studies of the ZirconiumWater Reaction,’’ ANL–6548, page 7,
May 1962).
Both of the above requirements
require the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO TM
cladding. The licensee proposes to use
Optimized ZIRLO TM as the cladding
material and therefore is requesting an
exemption from the requirements.
In summary, by letter dated May 6,
2010, (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS),
Accession No. ML101260517), the
licensee requested an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. The
reason for the exemption is to allow the
use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a
cladding material.
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
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
17716
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices
requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to public
health or safety, and are consistent with
the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are
present. These circumstances include
the special circumstances that
application of the regulation is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Authorized by Law
This exemption would allow the
licensee to use Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel
rod cladding material at NAPS. 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 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.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and
Safety
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria
for adequate ECCS performance. By
letter dated June 10, 2005 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML051670408), the NRC
staff issued a safety evaluation (SE)
approving Addendum 1 to
Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP–
12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A,
‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML062080576) (portions
of this topical report are non-publicly
available because they contain
proprietary information) (the report
with the proprietary information
removed is available at ADAMS
Accession No. ML062080569), wherein
the NRC staff approved the use of
Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel cladding
material. The NRC staff approved the
use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel
cladding material based on: (1)
Similarities with ZIRLO TM, (2)
demonstrated material performance, and
(3) a commitment to provide irradiated
data and validate fuel performance
models ahead of burnups achieved in
batch application. The NRC staff’s SE
for Optimized ZIRLO TM includes 10
conditions and limitations for its use.
As previously documented in the NRC
staff’s review of topical reports
submitted by Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC (Westinghouse), and
subject to compliance with the specific
conditions of approval established
therein, the NRC staff finds that the
applicability of these ECCS acceptance
criteria to Optimized ZIRLO TM has been
demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:59 Mar 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
compression tests performed by
Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM
(NRC-reviewed, approved, and
documented in Appendix B of WCAP–
12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A,
Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM’’)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML062080576)
demonstrate an acceptable retention of
post-quench ductility up to 10 CFR
50.46 limits of 2200° Fahrenheit and 17
percent equivalent clad reacted.
Furthermore, the NRC staff has
concluded that oxidation measurements
provided by the licensee illustrate that
oxide thickness (and associated
hydrogen pickup) for Optimized
ZIRLO TM at any given burnup would be
less than both zircaloy-4 and ZIRLO TM.
Hence, the NRC staff concludes that
Optimized ZIRLO TM would be expected
to maintain better post-quench ductility
than ZIRLO TM. This finding is further
supported by an ongoing loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) research program at
Argonne National Laboratory, which has
identified a strong correlation between
cladding hydrogen content (due to inservice corrosion) and post-quench
ductility.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix K, Section I.A.5,
‘‘Metal-Water Reaction Rate,’’ is to
ensure that cladding oxidation and
hydrogen generation are appropriately
limited during a LOCA and
conservatively accounted for in the
ECCS evaluation model. Appendix K
states that the rates of energy release,
hydrogen concentration, and cladding
oxidation from the metal-water reaction
shall be calculated using the Baker-Just
equation. Since the Baker-Just equation
presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel,
strict application of the rule would not
permit use of the equation for
Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding for
determining acceptable fuel
performance. However, the NRC staff
has found that metal-water reaction tests
performed by Westinghouse on
Optimized ZIRLO TM demonstrate
conservative reaction rates relative to
the Baker-Just equation and are
bounding for those approved for
ZIRLO TM under anticipated operational
occurrences and postulated accidents.
Based on the above, no new accident
precursors are created by using
Optimized ZIRLO TM, thus, the
probability of postulated accidents is
not increased. Also, based on the above,
the consequences of postulated
accidents are not increased. Therefore,
there is no undue risk to public health
and safety.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Consistent With Common Defense and
Security
The proposed exemption would allow
the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod
cladding material at NAPS. This change
to the plant configuration has no
relation to security issues. Therefore,
the common defense and security is not
impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances
Special circumstances, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present
whenever application of the regulation
in the particular circumstances is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule. The underlying
purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix
K to 10 CFR part 50 is to establish
acceptance criteria for ECCS
performance and to ensure that cladding
oxidation and hydrogen generation are
appropriately limited during a LOCA
and conservatively accounted for in the
ECCS evaluation model. The wording of
the regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K is not directly applicable to
Optimized ZIRLO TM, even though the
evaluations above show that the intent
of the regulation is met. Therefore, since
the underlying purposes of 10 CFR
50.46 and Appendix K are achieved
through the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM
fuel rod cladding material, the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an
exemption from certain requirements of
10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K exist.
4.0
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Also, special
circumstances are present. Therefore,
the Commission hereby grants VEPCO
an exemption from certain requirements
of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10
CFR Part 50, to allow the use of
Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding
material, for NAPS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the
Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment as published in the
Federal Register on September 2, 2010
(75 FR 53984).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of March 2011.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–7455 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. A2011–11; Order No. 702]
Post Office Closing
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document informs the
public that an appeal of the closing of
the Ida Post Office in Ida, Arkansas has
been filed. It identifies preliminary
steps and provides a procedural
schedule. Publication of this document
will allow the Postal Service, petitioner,
and others to take appropriate action.
DATES: Administrative record due (from
Postal Service): April 6, 2011; deadline
for notices to intervene: April 18, 2011.
See the Procedural Schedule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
other dates of interest.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing
Online’’ link in the banner at the top of
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing
the Commission’s Filing Online system
at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who
cannot submit their views electronically
should contact the person identified in
SUMMARY:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section as the source for case-related
information for advice on alternatives to
electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at 202–789–6820 (case-related
information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov
(electronic filing assistance).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
404(d), on March 22, 2011, the
Commission received a petition for
review of the Postal Service’s
determination to close the Ida, Arkansas
post office. The petition, which was
filed by the Committee to Save Ida Post
Office (Petitioner), is postmarked March
16, 2011, and was posted on the
Commission’s Web site March 22, 2011.
The Commission hereby institutes a
proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5)
and establishes Docket No. A2011–11 to
consider the Petitioner’s appeal. If the
Petitioner would like to further explain
its position with supplemental
information or facts, the Petitioner may
either file a Participant Statement on
PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the
Commission no later than April 26,
2011.
Categories of issues apparently raised.
The Petitioner raises the issue of failure
to consider the effect on the community.
See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i).
After the Postal Service files the
administrative record and the
Commission reviews it, the Commission
may find that there are more legal issues
than the one set forth above, or that the
Postal Service’s determination disposes
of one or more of those issues. The
deadline for the Postal Service to file the
administrative record with the
Commission is April 6, 2011.
See 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the
due date for any responsive pleading by
the Postal Service to this Notice is April
6, 2011.
Availability; Web site posting. The
Commission has posted the appeal and
supporting material on its Web site at
https://www.prc.gov. Additional filings
in this case and participants’
submissions also will be posted on the
Commission’s Web site, if provided in
electronic format or amenable to
conversion, and not subject to a valid
protective order. Information on how to
use the Commission’s Web site is
available online or by contacting the
Commission’s webmaster via telephone
at 202–789–6873 or via electronic mail
at prc-webmaster@prc.gov.
The appeal and all related documents
also are available for public inspection
in the Commission’s docket section.
Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal government holidays.
Docket section personnel may be
contacted via electronic mail at prcdockets@prc.gov or via telephone at
202–789–6846.
Filing of documents. All filings of
documents in this case shall be made
using the Internet (Filing Online)
pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and
10(a) at the Commission’s Web site,
https://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is
obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and
3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an
account to file documents online may be
found on the Commission’s Web site or
by contacting the Commission’s docket
section at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via
telephone at 202–789–6846.
The Commission reserves the right to
redact personal information which may
infringe on an individual’s privacy
rights from documents filed in this
proceeding.
Intervention. Those, other than the
Petitioner and respondent, wishing to be
heard in this matter are directed to file
a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR
3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in
this case are to be filed on or before
April 18, 2011. A notice of intervention
shall be filed using the Internet (Filing
Online) at the Commission’s Web site
unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy
filing. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and
3001.10(a).
Further procedures. By statute, the
Commission is required to issue its
decision within 120 days from the date
it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C.
404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has
been developed to accommodate this
statutory deadline. In the interest of
expedition, in light of the 120-day
decision schedule, the Commission may
request the Postal Service or other
participants to submit information or
memoranda of law on any appropriate
issue. As required by the Commission
rules, if any motions are filed, responses
are due 7 days after any such motion is
filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21.
It is ordered:
1. The Postal Service shall file the
administrative record regarding this
appeal no later than April 6, 2011.
2. Any responsive pleading by the
Postal Service to this Notice is due no
later than April 6, 2011.
3. The procedural schedule listed
below is hereby adopted.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505,
Cassandra L. Hicks is designated officer
of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this Notice and Order in
the Federal Register.
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
March 22, 2011 .......................................
April 6, 2011 ............................................
April 6, 2011 ............................................
April 18, 2011 ..........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:59 Mar 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Filing of Appeal.
Deadline for Postal Service to file administrative record in this appeal.
Deadline for the Postal Service to file any responsive pleading.
Deadline for notices to intervene (see 39 CFR 3001.111(b)).
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17717
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17715-17717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7455]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339; NRC-2010-0283]
Virginia Electric and Power Company North Anna Power Station,
Units 1 and 2; Exemption
1.0 Background
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO, the licensee) is the
holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 which
authorizes operation of the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2
(NAPS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is
subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in
Louisa County, Virginia.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50,
Section 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems
[ECCS] for light-water nuclear power reactors,'' requires that each
power reactor meet the acceptance criteria for ECCS provided therein
for zircaloy or ZIRLO TM cladding. Appendix K of 10 CFR Part
50, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' requires the rate of energy release,
hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation from the metal/water
reaction to be calculated using the Baker-Just equation (Baker, L.,
Just, L.C., ``Studies of Metal Water Reactions at High Temperatures,
III. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of the Zirconium-Water
Reaction,'' ANL-6548, page 7, May 1962).
Both of the above requirements require the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO
TM cladding. The licensee proposes to use Optimized ZIRLO
TM as the cladding material and therefore is requesting an
exemption from the requirements.
In summary, by letter dated May 6, 2010, (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML101260517), the
licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46
and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. The reason for the exemption is to
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a cladding material.
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
[[Page 17716]]
requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized
by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and
are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when
special circumstances are present. These circumstances include the
special circumstances that application of the regulation is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
Authorized by Law
This exemption would allow the licensee to use Optimized ZIRLO
TM fuel rod cladding material at NAPS. 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 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.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to establish acceptance
criteria for adequate ECCS performance. By letter dated June 10, 2005
(ADAMS Accession No. ML051670408), the NRC staff issued a safety
evaluation (SE) approving Addendum 1 to Westinghouse Topical Report
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, ``Optimized ZIRLO TM''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML062080576) (portions of this topical report are
non-publicly available because they contain proprietary information)
(the report with the proprietary information removed is available at
ADAMS Accession No. ML062080569), wherein the NRC staff approved the
use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel cladding material. The
NRC staff approved the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel
cladding material based on: (1) Similarities with ZIRLO TM,
(2) demonstrated material performance, and (3) a commitment to provide
irradiated data and validate fuel performance models ahead of burnups
achieved in batch application. The NRC staff's SE for Optimized ZIRLO
TM includes 10 conditions and limitations for its use. As
previously documented in the NRC staff's review of topical reports
submitted by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse), and
subject to compliance with the specific conditions of approval
established therein, the NRC staff finds that the applicability of
these ECCS acceptance criteria to Optimized ZIRLO TM has
been demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring compression tests performed by
Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM (NRC-reviewed, approved,
and documented in Appendix B of WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A,
Addendum 1-A, ``Optimized ZIRLO TM'') (ADAMS Accession No.
ML062080576) demonstrate an acceptable retention of post-quench
ductility up to 10 CFR 50.46 limits of 2200[deg] Fahrenheit and 17
percent equivalent clad reacted. Furthermore, the NRC staff has
concluded that oxidation measurements provided by the licensee
illustrate that oxide thickness (and associated hydrogen pickup) for
Optimized ZIRLO TM at any given burnup would be less than
both zircaloy-4 and ZIRLO TM. Hence, the NRC staff concludes
that Optimized ZIRLO TM would be expected to maintain better
post-quench ductility than ZIRLO TM. This finding is further
supported by an ongoing loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) research
program at Argonne National Laboratory, which has identified a strong
correlation between cladding hydrogen content (due to in-service
corrosion) and post-quench ductility.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, Section
I.A.5, ``Metal-Water Reaction Rate,'' is to ensure that cladding
oxidation and hydrogen generation are appropriately limited during a
LOCA and conservatively accounted for in the ECCS evaluation model.
Appendix K states that the rates of energy release, hydrogen
concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction
shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Since the Baker-Just
equation presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of
the rule would not permit use of the equation for Optimized ZIRLO
TM cladding for determining acceptable fuel performance.
However, the NRC staff has found that metal-water reaction tests
performed by Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM demonstrate
conservative reaction rates relative to the Baker-Just equation and are
bounding for those approved for ZIRLO TM under anticipated
operational occurrences and postulated accidents.
Based on the above, no new accident precursors are created by using
Optimized ZIRLO TM, thus, the probability of postulated
accidents is not increased. Also, based on the above, the consequences
of postulated accidents are not increased. Therefore, there is no undue
risk to public health and safety.
Consistent With Common Defense and Security
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
TM fuel rod cladding material at NAPS. This change to the
plant configuration has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the
common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii),
are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular
circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the
rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR
part 50 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance and to
ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen generation are
appropriately limited during a LOCA and conservatively accounted for in
the ECCS evaluation model. The wording of the regulations in 10 CFR
50.46 and Appendix K is not directly applicable to Optimized ZIRLO
TM, even though the evaluations above show that the intent
of the regulation is met. Therefore, since the underlying purposes of
10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K are achieved through the use of Optimized
ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding material, the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an
exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K
exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants VEPCO an exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, to allow
the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding material,
for NAPS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment as published in the Federal Register
on September 2, 2010 (75 FR 53984).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 2011.
[[Page 17717]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-7455 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
