[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75674-75676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30773]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388; NRC-2012-0306]
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, PPL
Susquehanna, LLC, Exemption
1.0 Background
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22, which authorizes
operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and
2. 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 two boiling-water reactors located in Salem
Township in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
2.0 Request/Action
Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b requires that ``[e]ach licensee at each
site shall conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan every 2
years. * * *'' By letters dated October 25, November 16, and November
29, 2012,\1\ the licensee requested a temporary one-time exemption from
this requirement that would allow postponing the onsite portion of the
biennial emergency preparedness (EP) exercise from October 23, 2012, to
February 26, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession
Nos. ML12300A108, ML12324A249, and ML123350107, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The licensee stated that an exemption is being requested due to an
unplanned Unit 1 outage necessary due to fatigue cracking experienced
on the Unit 1 turbine blades described herein. On October 3, 2012, SSES
received a recommendation from its low pressure (LP) turbine supplier
to remove the Unit 1 Main Turbine from service to perform LP turbine
end blade root inspections. The licensee subsequently reduced reactor
power on Units 1 and 2 to minimize blade tip vibration and allow
additional time for outage planning. The licensee removed Unit 1 from
service on October 20, 2012. According to the licensee, the Unit 1
shutdown affected the availability of a significant number of employees
that would be required to support outage functions on a 24-hour basis,
including an operating shift, as well as several key managers.
Therefore, these personnel were unavailable to support the EP exercise
on October 23, 2012.
The licensee further stated that it has made a good faith effort to
comply with the regulation as indicated by the licensee's personnel
supporting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and local agencies in the successful
demonstration of the offsite portions of the SSES biennial exercise on
October 23, 2012, with no deficiencies being identified by FEMA. All
onsite positions that would provide communications to/from offsite
agencies regarding emergency event classifications and protective
action recommendations were staffed by licensee control cells at the
emergency operations facility (EOF) to facilitate the offsite response.
A licensee Recovery Manager also participated as a control cell to
address communications with the Senior State Official. However, as a
result of the licensee's participation in the offsite portion of the
exercise, the scenario was compromised. To ensure exercise integrity,
the licensee stated that it was developing and validating a new
scenario, which would require the NRC review under 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b.
When the licensee submitted its letter dated November 16, 2012,
Unit 1 had been restored to service and the licensee had determined,
based on the results of the Unit 1 turbine blade outage, that it was
necessary to shutdown Unit 2 to conduct the same inspection. The
licensee further stated that the estimated time needed to develop and
validate a new scenario, as well as resources required in support of
the Unit 2 outage, required that the onsite portion of a biennial EP
exercise be rescheduled beyond calendar year 2012.
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, Appendix E, 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.
Authorized by Law
This exemption would allow the licensee to accommodate these
impacts upon its resources by postponing the onsite portion of the
exercise from the previously scheduled date of October 23, 2012, to
February 26, 2013.
As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions
from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. 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 part 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.F.2.b, requiring licensees to conduct a biennial EP exercise is to
ensure that the licensee's emergency response organization (ERO)
personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of
emergency plans. In addition, 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.F.2.b, also requires licensees to maintain adequate emergency
response capabilities during the intervals between biennial exercises
by conducting drills to exercise the principal functional areas of
emergency response. In order to accommodate the scheduling of full
participation exercises, the NRC has allowed licensees to schedule the
exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the
remaining onsite portions of the SSES full participation exercise by
February 26, 2013, rather than in calendar year 2012, places the
exercise outside of the required biennium.
[[Page 75675]]
Since the last biennial EP exercise conducted on October 5, 2010,
the licensee has conducted seven full-scale drills, which included
activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities, and
participation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and local agencies.
The licensee indicated that these full-scale drills exercised the
functions of SSES's ERO to respond to an emergency scenario involving a
radiological release, coordinate actions to mitigate the event, and
coordinate actions and communications with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and risk county emergency management agencies. To further
ensure that the licensee's ERO maintains a proper level of readiness to
perform their duties since October 5, 2010, the licensee has also
conducted 13 practice drills, involving the activation of the
licensee's emergency response facilities but without offsite agencies
participation, and a combination of 24 licensed operator scenarios or
control room simulator table tops. In addition, the licensee has
conducted extensive training for licensee ERO functions, offsite
municipalities, county emergency responders, and various offsite
emergency response personnel since the previous biennial exercise, as
outlined in the licensee's letter dated October 25, 2012.
On August 23, 2011, the licensee demonstrated its response to an
actual event resulting from the classification of a Notification of
Unusual Event due to an earthquake that resulted in the staffing of the
licensee's Technical Support Center.
The NRC staff considers the intent of the requirement of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b met by having conducted these
series of drills, training sessions, and actual event response. As
such, no new accident precursors are created by allowing the licensee
to postpone the onsite portion of the biennial EP exercise from the
previously scheduled date of October 23, 2012, to February 26, 2013.
Thus, the probability and 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 rescheduling of the onsite
portion of the SSES biennial EP exercise from the previously scheduled
date of October 23, 2012, to February 26, 2013. This change to the EP
exercise schedule has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the
common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances
In order to grant exemptions in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12,
special circumstances must be present. The special circumstances per 10
CFR 50.12 that apply to this exemption request are 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (v).
Special circumstances, per 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present
when: ``[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances
would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary
to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.'' The underlying
purposes of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b, requiring
licensees to conduct a biennial EP exercise is to ensure that ERO
personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of
emergency plans. Section IV.F.2.b of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E
requires licensees at each site to conduct an exercise of onsite
emergency plans biennially with full-participation by each offsite
authority having a role under the plan. Since the licensee has: (1)
Conducted seven full-scale drills involving offsite participation, 13
ERO (licensee only) practice drills, and a combination of 24 licensed
operator scenarios or control room simulator table tops; (2) provided
extensive training for licensee ERO functions, offsite municipalities,
county emergency responders, various offsite emergency response
personnel since the previous biennial exercise; (3) demonstrated ERO
proficiency in response to the August 23, 2011, Notification of Unusual
Event; and (4) supported the FEMA evaluation of the State and local
authorities during the exercise held October 20, 2012, the NRC staff
considers that these measures are adequate to maintain an acceptable
level of emergency preparedness during the period of postponement from
October 23, 2012, to February 26, 2013, satisfying the underlying
purpose of the rule.
Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present
whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the
applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith
efforts to comply with the regulation. The licensee requested the
offsite portion of the biennial EP exercise be postponed from October
23, 2012, to February 26, 2013, providing only temporary relief. The
licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation as
indicated by the licensee's personnel supporting the FEMA, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and local agencies in the successful
demonstration of the offsite portions of the SSES biennial exercise on
October 23, 2012, with no deficiencies being identified by FEMA. All
onsite positions that would provide communications to/from offsite
agencies regarding emergency event classifications and protective
action recommendations were staffed by licensee control cells at the
EOF to facilitate the offsite response. A licensee Recovery Manager
also participated as a control cell to address communications with the
Senior State Official. The licensee had intended to conduct the onsite
portion of the EP exercise on October 23, 2012, but requested to
postpone it due to the turbine outage that was described above in
Section 2.0. Also, as a result of the licensee's participation in the
offsite portion of the exercise performed on October 23, 2012, the
exercise scenario was compromised. To ensure exercise integrity, a new
scenario will need to be developed, validated and submitted to the NRC,
and new ERO participants and controllers selected to participate in the
onsite portion of the biennial exercise. The licensee stated that due
to the unplanned turbine outages on Units 1 and 2, key personnel would
not be available to complete the scenario modification activities and
conduct the exercise prior to the end of calendar year 2012.
Therefore, since the licensee requested only temporary relief, made
a good faith effort to comply, and the underlying purpose of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b is achieved, the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12 for the granting of an exemption
exist.
4.0 Environmental Consideration
By letters dated October 25, November 16, and November 29, 2012,
the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b with regards to conducting an
exercise of onsite emergency plans biennially with full-participation,
as discussed above. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed
exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is
required to be prepared in connection with the proposed issuance of the
exemption. The basis for the NRC staff's determination is discussed
below with an evaluation against each of the requirements in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25).
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)
The NRC staff evaluated the issue of no significant hazards
consideration,
[[Page 75676]]
using the standards described in 10 CFR 50.92(c), as presented below:
1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and relates
solely to the scheduling requirements of the performance of an exercise
of onsite emergency plans. The proposed exemption does not involve any
physical plant modifications to SSES, Units 1 and 2. The proposed
exemption would not alter the way any structure, system, or component
(SSC) functions and would not alter the way SSES, Units 1 and 2 are
operated. As such, the proposed exemption would have no impact on the
ability of any SSCs to either prevent or mitigate any previously
evaluated accidents as described in the SSES, Units 1 and 2 Updated
Final Safety Analysis Reports. Therefore, the proposed exemption does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and relates
solely to the scheduling requirements of the performance of an exercise
of onsite emergency plans. The proposed exemption does not involve any
physical plant modifications to SSES, Units 1 and 2. The proposed
exemption would not alter the way any SSC functions and would not alter
the way SSES, Units 1 and 2 are operated. As such, the proposed
exemption would not introduce any credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the
design and licensing bases. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation to the public. There are no physical plant
modifications associated with the proposed exemption. The proposed
exemption would not alter the way any SSC functions and would not alter
the way SSES, Units 1 and 2 are operated. The proposed exemption would
not introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing
uncertainties associated with any safety limit. The proposed exemption
would have no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on
the above considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed
exemption would not degrade the confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that no
significant hazards consideration is involved for the proposed
exemption (i.e., satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)).
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) Through 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)
The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and relates
solely to the scheduling requirements of the performance of an exercise
of onsite emergency plans. The proposed exemption does not involve any
physical plant modifications to SSES, Units 1 and 2. The proposed
exemption would not alter the way any SSC functions and would not alter
the way SSES, Units 1 and 2 are operated. As such, the NRC staff
concludes that granting the proposed exemption: (1) Would not result in
a significant change in the types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite (i.e., satisfies
the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii)); (2) would not result in a
significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational
radiation exposure (i.e., satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25)(iii)); (3) would have no significant construction impact
(i.e., satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)); and (4)
would not result in a significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from a radiological accident (i.e., satisfies the
provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v)). In addition, the requirements
from which the proposed exemption is sought involve scheduling
requirements, therefore satisfying the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22
(c)(25)(vi)(G).
Conclusion
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed
exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) through 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment is required to be prepared in
connection with the proposed issuance of the exemption.
5.0 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 PPL Susquehanna, LLC an
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.F.2.b to conduct the onsite portion of the biennial EP exercise
required for 2012, permitting that part of the exercise be conducted by
February 26, 2013 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2. This conclusion is based on the licensee's commitment to conduct
the postponed exercise by February 26, 2013. As such, the calendar
biennium will continue to be determined from the previous exercise date
(i.e., the next evaluated exercise is expected to be performed in
2014).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-30773 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P