[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66433-66436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26191]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-293; NRC-2016-0035]
Holtec Pilgrim, LLC; Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a
director's decision with regard to a petition dated June 24, 2015,
filed by Mr. David Lochbaum on behalf of the Union of Concerned
Scientists, along with seven co-petitioners, requesting that the NRC
take action with regard to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim
or the licensee). The petitioner's requests and the director's decision
are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
DATES: The director's decision was issued on November 25, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0035 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0035. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first
time that it is mentioned in this document. The director's decision is
available under ADAMS Accession No. ML19303C397.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Booma Venkataraman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2934, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the director's decision is
attached.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Booma Venkataraman,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment--Director's Decision DD-19-02
United States of America
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Ho K. Nieh, Director
In the Matter of Holtec Pilgrim, LLC, Holtec Decommissioning
International, LLC, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Docket No. 50-293
License No. DPR-35
[[Page 66434]]
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
I. Introduction
By letter dated June 24, 2015,\1\ Mr. David Lochbaum (``the
petitioner''), on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, along
with seven co-petitioners (collectively ``the petitioners''), filed
a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Section 2.206, ``Requests for Action Under This Subpart,''
related to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim). The
petitioners requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) ``take enforcement action to require that the current
licensing basis for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) in
Plymouth, Massachusetts explicitly includes flooding caused by local
intense precipitation/probable maximum precipitation events.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML16029A407.
\2\ Page 1 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition references a letter from Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (``Entergy'') \3\ to the NRC dated March 12,
2015,\4\ containing Pilgrim's flood hazard reevaluation report
(FHRR). Entergy submitted the FHRR in response to the NRC's letter
dated March 12, 2012, ``Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding
Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review
of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.'' \5\ The NRC sent
this request for information to power reactor licensees and holders
of construction permits in active or deferred status to address one
of the agency's recommendations in response to the accident at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan in March 2011. As
the basis for the request, the petitioners state that Pilgrim's
reevaluations in the FHRR show that as a result of heavy rainfall
events, the site could experience flood levels nearly 10 feet higher
than anticipated when the plant was originally licensed. Although
existing doors installed at the site protect important equipment
from being submerged and damaged by heavy rainfall events and
flooding, the petitioners assert that neither regulatory
requirements nor enforceable commitments exist that ensure the
continued reliability of those doors. The petition states, in
relevant part, ``the petitioners seek to rectify this safety
shortcoming by revising the current licensing basis to include
flooding caused by heavy rainfall events.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NRC approved the direct transfer of Entergy licensed
authority to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) and the
indirect transfer of control of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company's
(ENGC) (to be known as Holtec Pilgrim, LLC) ownership interests in
the facility licenses to Holtec International (Holtec) on August 22,
2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19170A265). By letter dated August 22,
2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19234A357), Entergy stated that
following the license transfer, HDI will assume responsibility for
all ongoing NRC regulatory actions and reviews underway for Pilgrim.
On August 27, 2019, the NRC staff issued a conforming amendment to
HDI and Holtec Pilgrim, LLC to reflect the license transfer (ADAMS
Accession No. ML19235A050).
\4\ ADAMS Accession No. ML15075A082.
\5\ ADAMS Accession No. ML12073A348.
\6\ Page 1 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2015, in a public teleconference,\7\ the
petitioners presented additional clarification and supplementary
issues to the petition review board. The NRC staff considered this
supplementary information during its evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Transcript available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15230A017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated February 11, 2016,\8\ the NRC informed the
petitioners that the portion of their request seeking enforcement
action to require Pilgrim's current licensing basis to include
flooding caused by local intense precipitation (LIP) or probable
maximum precipitation events meets the acceptance criteria in NRC
Management Directive 8.11, ``Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206
Petitions,'' revised October 25, 2000.\9\ The letter noted that the
NRC referred the petition to the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation (NRR) for appropriate action. This letter also informed
the petitioners that the two supplementary issues raised in the
August 5, 2015, teleconference do not meet the criteria for
consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. The letter explained that the
petitioners' concerns about the impact of precipitation events on
safety-related submerged cables do not meet the criteria for review
because this issue was reviewed and resolved in a previous 10 CFR
2.206 director's decision.\10\ Furthermore, the letter noted that
the request for an updated site plan of Pilgrim does not meet the
criteria for review because it is outside the scope of the 10 CFR
2.206 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ADAMS Accession No. ML15356A735.
\9\ ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328.
\10\ ADAMS Accession No. ML13255A191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
Under 10 CFR 2.206(b), the Director of the NRC office with
responsibility for the subject matter shall either institute the
requested proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or
advise the person who made the request in writing that no proceeding
will be instituted, in whole or in part, with respect to the request
and give the reason for the decision. The petitioners raised
concerns about safety shortcomings related to flooding hazards
caused by heavy rainfall events at Pilgrim based on the FHRR
information submitted by Entergy on March 12, 2015. Referring to the
FHRR, the petitioners noted that heavy rainfall events constitute a
significantly greater flooding hazard at Pilgrim than the design-
basis flood hazard posed by an extreme storm surge.
The NRC staff analyzed the petitioners' concerns, and the
results of those analyses are discussed below. The decision of the
Director of NRR is provided for each of these concerns. To provide
clarity and context, this discussion provides definitions of
commonly used terms in the analysis and relevant background
information, followed by a response to the petitioners' concerns.
Definitions
The NRC staff uses the terms ``current licensing basis,''
``design-basis events,'' and ``design bases'' throughout the
document. These terms have different regulatory definitions and are
not interchangeable. For clarity, a short definition of each of
these terms is provided below.
The NRC defines ``current licensing basis'' in 10 CFR 54.3,
``Definitions.'' The current licensing basis of a plant is the ``set
of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensee's
written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation
within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design
basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments
over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect.'' The
current licensing basis includes:
Legally binding regulatory requirements on the licensee
(e.g., regulations, orders, license conditions)
mandated documents and programs developed and
maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements (e.g., updated
final safety analysis report)
regulatory commitments provided by the licensee in
official correspondence
The NRC defines the term ``design-basis events'' in 10 CFR
50.49, ``Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important
to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants.'' ``Design-basis events'' are
those events that the NRC requires licensees to consider when
identifying safety-related structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) needed to provide key safety functions.
``Design bases'' information is an important subset of the
current licensing basis and is defined in 10 CFR 50.2,
``Definitions.'' Design bases include the specific functions and
reference bounds for the design of plant SSCs. The design bases of
specific SSCs can include information related to design-basis
events, beyond-design-basis events, or both.\11\ Safety-related SSCs
typically have associated technical specification requirements in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(C). SSCs that address a
beyond-design-basis regulatory obligation do not necessarily have
associated technical specification requirements but are nevertheless
expected to be functional in order to demonstrate a licensee's
compliance with the underlying obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Figure 1. Design and Licensing Basis for Nuclear Power
Plants (ADAMS Accession No. ML15127A401).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff also uses the term ``beyond-design-basis events''
throughout this document. The term ``beyond-design-basis events,''
is not defined in NRC regulations, however in the past, the NRC has
adopted regulations requiring licensees and applicants to address
certain events and accidents without considering them to be
``design-basis events.'' Examples include the NRC's regulations for
station blackout in accordance with 10 CFR 50.63, ``Loss of All
Alternating Current Power,'' and regulations for loss of large areas
of the plant because of explosions or fires in accordance with 10
CFR 50.54(hh)(2).\12\ The use of the term ``beyond-design-basis
external events'' in this
[[Page 66435]]
document relates to the consideration of lessons learned as a result
of the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi. This accident highlighted the
possibility that certain external events may simultaneously
challenge the prevention, mitigation, and emergency preparedness
measures that provide defense-in-depth protections for nuclear power
plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The requirements previously in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) have
been relocated to 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) in accordance with the staff
requirements memorandum dated January 24, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML19023A038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The NRC's assessment of the lessons learned from the experiences
at Fukushima Dai-ichi led to the conclusion that additional
requirements were needed to increase the capability of nuclear power
plants to address certain beyond-design-basis external events. As a
result, the NRC imposed new requirements to enhance safety by
issuing Order EA-12-049, ``Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with
Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-
Basis External Events,'' dated March 12, 2012.\13\ The NRC also
required licensees to reevaluate seismic and flooding hazards using
present-day standards and guidance and provide that information to
the NRC in accordance with the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f)
letter. Entergy submitted the Pilgrim FHRR dated March 12, 2015, in
response to the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ADAMS Accession No. ML12054A735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff reviewed the Pilgrim FHRR as part of the NRC's
response to the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, as noted in the NRC's
February 11, 2016, letter to the petitioners.\8\ The letter noted,
in relevant part, ``the issue [raised by the petitioners] is being
addressed by a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter, dated March 12, 2012. . . .''
The March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter states, in relevant
part, ``[t]he current regulatory approach, and the resultant plant
capabilities, gave the NTTF [Near-Term Task Force] and the NRC the
confidence to conclude that an accident with consequences similar to
the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States.
The NRC concluded that continued plant operation and the
continuation of licensing activities did not pose an imminent risk
to public health and safety.''
On September 30, 2015, the NRC completed an inspection at
Pilgrim related to the interim actions Entergy provided as part of
the FHRR. Entergy's interim actions included those activities that
Entergy used to mitigate the reevaluated hazards at Pilgrim that
exceeded Pilgrim's current licensing basis. The staff presented the
results of the inspection in Inspection Report 05000293/2015003,
dated November 12, 2015.\14\ Page 29 of the inspection report
documents the NRC's independent verification that Entergy's
assumptions used in the FHRR interim actions reflected actual plant
conditions. The NRC performed visual inspection of the installed
flood protection features, where appropriate. The NRC also conducted
external visual inspection for indications of degradation that would
prevent the performance of the credited function for each identified
feature. Additionally, the NRC determined flood protection feature
functionality using either visual observation or review of other
documents. The NRC's inspection of interim actions supported
Entergy's conclusion that Pilgrim is able to cope with the
reevaluated flooding hazard until the remaining assessments were
performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ADAMS Accession No. ML15317A030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2016, the NRC staff summarized \15\ its assessment
of reevaluated flood-causing mechanisms described in the FHRR. The
staff's assessment was consistent with Entergy's March 12, 2015,
FHRR and concluded that Pilgrim has two flood-causing scenarios that
are not bounded or not fully evaluated in the plant's design bases.
The two scenarios are flooding caused by a LIP event and flooding
caused by the combined effects of storm surge and wind-wave activity
from the Atlantic Ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16215A086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18, 2016, Entergy requested \16\ to permanently defer
the remaining flooding assessments in response to the 10 CFR
50.54(f) letter of March 12, 2012, in anticipation of the planned
permanent shutdown of Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019 \17\. On
April 17, 2017, the NRC staff responded \18\ to Entergy's request
and deferred the remaining flood assessments until December 31,
2019. The NRC noted that any meaningful further improvement to
safety would not be achieved before permanent defueling of the plant
consistent with Pilgrim's proposed shutdown date. The April 17,
2017, letter from the NRC staff also stated that if the plant
continues to operate beyond June 1, 2019, Entergy would still be
expected to submit the remaining flooding assessments including a
flooding mitigating strategies assessment and a flooding-focused
evaluation or integrated assessment (if applicable) in accordance
with NRC-endorsed guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16250A018.
\17\ ADAMS Accession No. ML15328A053.
\18\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16278A313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission provided additional direction related to
reevaluated flood mechanisms in the Affirmation Notice and Staff
Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 24, 2019,\19\ associated
with SECY-16-0142, ``Draft Final Rule--Mitigation of Beyond-Design-
Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49).'' \20\ The SRM states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ADAMS Accession No. ML19023A038.
\20\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16291A186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ongoing reevaluated hazard assessments, the site-specific 10
CFR 50.54(f) process remains in place to ensure that the agency and
its licensees will take the needed actions, if any, to ensure that
each plant is able to withstand the effects of the reevaluated
flooding and seismic hazards. The staff should continue these
efforts, utilizing existing agency processes to determine whether an
operating power reactor license should be modified, suspended, or
revoked in light of the reevaluated hazard.
On June 10, 2019,\21\ Entergy submitted a letter certifying
permanent cessation of power operations at Pilgrim in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and certified that the fuel has been
permanently removed from the Pilgrim reactor vessel and placed in
the spent fuel pool in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).
Entergy acknowledged in its letter that once these certifications
are docketed, the Pilgrim license will no longer authorize operation
of the reactor or placement or retention of fuel in the reactor
vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ADAMS Accession No. ML19161A033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 2019,\22\ Entergy provided its final response to the
March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) activities related to the
reevaluated seismic and flood hazards and affirmed that Pilgrim is
no longer an operating plant and is a permanently shutdown and
defueled reactor. Therefore, Entergy stated that it considered the
requests of the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter to no longer
be applicable to Pilgrim and informed the staff that Entergy no
longer plans to proceed with any further implementation of the
requests in the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter. In light of
the Pilgrim shutdown, the staff assessed the need for any additional
regulatory actions associated with the spent fuel pool in relation
to the reevaluated flood hazard, as documented in its assessment
dated July 5, 2019.\23\ The NRC staff concluded in the July 5, 2019,
assessment letter that no further responses or actions associated
with the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter are necessary for Pilgrim because
Entergy is no longer authorized to load fuel into the vessel, and
potential fuel-related accident scenarios are limited to the spent
fuel pool. Unlike fuel in the reactor, the safety of fuel located in
the spent fuel pool is assured for an extended period through
maintenance of pool structural integrity, which preserves coolant
inventory and maintains margin to prevent criticality. Small changes
in the flooding hazard elevation would not threaten the structural
integrity of the spent fuel pool because the bottom of the spent
fuel pool is over 50 feet above plant grade level. As stated above,
the two reevaluated flood-causing scenarios that are not bounded or
fully evaluated in the plant's design bases are flooding caused by
the combined effects of storm surge and wind-wave activity from the
Atlantic Ocean and flooding caused by a LIP event. The staff
evaluated these two reevaluated flood-causing scenarios and
determined that the changes in flooding hazard evaluation would be
small, particularly at plant grade level, and therefore, would not
threaten the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ADAMS Accession No. ML19170A391.
\23\ ADAMS Accession No. ML19168A231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the
petitioners and to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and
Holtec Pilgrim, LLC for comment on October 8, 2019. The NRC did not
receive any comments on the proposed director's decision.
Response to Petitioners' Concerns
Concern 1: Pilgrim's flood hazard reevaluations indicate that as
a result of heavy rainfall events, the site could experience flood
levels nearly 10 feet higher than anticipated when the plant was
[[Page 66436]]
originally licensed. Although existing doors protect important
equipment from being submerged and damaged, neither regulatory
requirements nor enforceable commitments exist that ensure the
continued reliability of those doors. The petitioners seek to
rectify this safety shortcoming by revising the current licensing
basis to include flooding caused by heavy rainfall events.
The NRC staff's assessment dated July 5, 2019, concluded that no
further regulatory actions are necessary; therefore, the staff will
not revise Pilgrim's current licensing basis to include flooding
caused by heavy rainfall events. Had the plant not permanently
ceased operations, the staff would have reviewed the March 12, 2012,
10 CFR 50.54(f) reevaluated flood hazard information in accordance
with the Commission direction provided in the SRM dated January 24,
2019, and determined whether further regulatory action was
warranted.
Concern 2: Being outside the licensing basis means there are no
applicable regulatory requirements. As a direct result, there can be
no associated compliance commitments. Being within the current
licensing basis invokes a wide array of associated regulatory
requirements. For example, 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,'' Appendix B, ``Quality
Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing
Plants,'' requires that licensees find and fix problems with SSCs
having safety functions credited within the current licensing basis.
The staff concluded in its July 5, 2019, letter that no further
response or actions associated with the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR
50.54(f) letter are necessary, and therefore, SSCs relied on to
address the reevaluated flood hazard are not required to be safety-
related \24\ and do not need to meet the quality assurance
requirements in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B. Had the plant not
permanently ceased operations, the staff would have reviewed the
March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f) reevaluated flood hazard information
in accordance with the Commission direction provided in the SRM
dated January 24, 2019, and determined whether further regulatory
action was warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 10 CFR 50.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Conclusion
The NRC evaluated the petitioners' concerns and determined that
the petitioners' request is addressed through the staff's conclusion
as stated in the July 5, 2019, letter and that no further response
or actions associated with the March 12, 2012, 10 CFR 50.54(f)
letter are necessary for Pilgrim because there is no longer an
entity authorized to load fuel into the vessel, and potential fuel-
related accident scenarios are limited to the spent fuel pool.
Unlike fuel in the reactor, the safety of fuel located in the spent
fuel pool is assured for an extended period through maintenance of
pool structural integrity, which preserves coolant inventory and
maintains margin to prevent criticality. The staff concludes that
the small changes in the flooding hazard elevation projected for the
two reevaluated flood-causing scenarios do not threaten the
structural integrity of the spent fuel pool.
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 review. 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 25th day of November, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ho K. Nieh,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-26191 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P