[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