Opinion ID: 216911
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Decisions of the Board

Text: On February 9, 2007, the Board denied Citizens' motion to add the Embedded Region Contention and the Interior Corrosion Contention. The Board determined that both contentions were untimely because they were filed after the contention admissibility deadline and they were not based on previously unavailable information. Alternatively, the Board held that even if the contentions were timely, Citizens did not demonstrate that a genuine dispute existed on a material issue of law or fact. The Board also determined that both the Acceptance Criteria and the Spatial Scope Contentions were not based on previously unavailable information, and thus were untimely. After the administrative record was closed, the Board convened an evidentiary hearing, focusing primarily on the Frequency Contention. Exelon, Citizens, and the NRC presented numerous witnesses. The central issue during the proceedings was whether Exelon's scheduled UT monitoring frequency in the sand bed region during the period of extended operation was sufficient to maintain an adequate safety margin. On December 18, 2007, the Board rejected the Frequency Contention and found that Exelon demonstrated that the frequency of its planned UT measurements would maintain the necessary safety margin (the Initial Decision). See In the Matter of AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), No. 50-0219-LR, 66 N.R.C. 327 (2007). Judge Baratta concurred and would have imposed additional requirements on the proposed 3-D analysis. After the NRC directed the Board to address this issue, it determined that Exelon's 3-D analysis would be sufficient. Citizens filed a petition for review of the Initial Decision to the NRC. While the petition for review of the Initial Decision was pending, Citizens filed a motion to reopen the administrative record and to add a new contention after the Staff informed the NRC that it was reviewing an analytical approach called the Green's function method. Licensees of nuclear power plants often used this method to calculate certain cumulative usage factors, which quantify the fatigue that a particular metal component experiences during plant operation. The Staff reported that although the safety significance of using the [Green's function] is low, it wanted to alert the NRC. 68 N.R.C. at 10. Soon after, the Staff issued a report addressing the potential problems with the analysis, but ultimately concluded that the Green's function methodology is not in question and applicants who rely on it should perform confirmatory analyses to demonstrate that the simplified Green's function analyses provide acceptable results. Id. Exelon subsequently performed a confirmatory analysis. Based on the Staff's report and a newspaper article in which an NRC spokesperson commented on the significance of a break in a recirculation nozzle, Citizens sought to add another contention to the motionthat Exelon's predictions for metal fatigue for the circulation nozzles at Oyster Creek were deficient, and a confirmatory analysis was necessary (the Metal Fatigue Contention). On July 24, 2008, the Board denied the motion and ruled that Citizens did not raise a significant safety issue regarding use of the Green's function analysis and, in any event, the contention was moot because Exelon performed a confirmatory analysis. See In the Matter of AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), No. 50-0219-LR, 68 N.R.C. 5 (2008).