[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20690-20693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08122]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252]
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc. Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power
SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC); Georgia Power
Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG
Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton,
Georgia (together, the ``VEGP Owners'') are the holders of Combined
License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, which authorize the construction
and operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (VEGP
3 & 4), respectively.\1\ The NRC is issuing an exemption allowing
applicants for an operator license at VEGP 3 & 4 to satisfy the
requirement to provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has
successfully manipulated the controls of either the facility for which
the license is sought or a plant-referenced simulator (PRS) by,
instead, providing evidence that the applicant has successfully
manipulated the controls of a Commission-approved simulation facility
for VEGP 3 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SNC is authorized by the VEGP Owners to exercise
responsibility and control over the physical construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facility, and will be referred to
as ``facility licensee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: This exemption is effective as of April 8, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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 Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then 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 a document is referenced. The
facility licensee's Commission-Approved Simulation Facility application
and exemption request was submitted to the NRC by letter dated
September 18, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15265A107).
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: Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
telephone: 301-415-2809; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (VEGP 3 & 4) are
Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized-water reactors under construction in
Burke County, Georgia. They are co-located with Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, which are two operating Westinghouse
four-loop pressurized-water reactors.
The simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 comprises two AP1000 full
scope simulators, which are designated ``3A'' and ``3B.'' Both
simulators are referenced to Vogtle Unit 3 and are intended to be
maintained functionally identical. The simulators are licensed to
conform to the requirements of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant
Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and License
Examination'' (ANS 3.5), as endorsed by Revision 3 of NRC Regulatory
Guide 1.149, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in
Operator Training and License Examinations.''
On March 29, 2016, the Commission approved the simulation facility
under Sec. 55.46(b) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), for use in the administration of operating tests after finding
that the simulation facility and its proposed use are suitable for the
conduct of operating tests for the facility
[[Page 20691]]
licensee's reference plant under 10 CFR 55.45(a) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16070A301).
II. Request/Action
Section 55.31(a)(5) states that to apply for an operator or senior
operator license the applicant shall provide evidence that the
applicant, as a trainee, has successfully manipulated the controls of
either the facility for which a license is sought or a PRS that meets
the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(c). However, the VEGP 3 & 4 simulators
have not yet been found to meet the NRC's requirements for plant-
referenced simulators at 10 CFR 55.46(c) because the design activities
required by the AP1000 design certification to establish the human
factors engineering design for the main control room are incomplete.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) has not requested an
exemption. The Commission, on its own initiative, has determined that
an exemption is warranted from the requirement in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5)
that the applicant for a VEGP 3 & 4 operator license use a PRS or the
facility to provide evidence of having successfully manipulated the
controls of the facility. In lieu of that requirement, the Commission
will accept evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has successfully
manipulated the controls of the VEGP 3 & 4 Commission-approved
simulation facility meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(b).
The staff's evaluation of this action follows.
III. Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission may, upon application by
an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR part 55 as it determines are (1) authorized
by law and (2) will not endanger life or property and (3) are otherwise
in the public interest.
1. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law
Exemptions are authorized by law where they are not expressly
prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly
``authorized by law'' if all of the conditions listed therein are met
(i.e., will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the
public interest) and no other provision prohibits, or otherwise
restricts, its application. As discussed in this section of the
evaluation, no provisions in law restrict or prohibit an exemption to
the requirements concerning control manipulations; the ``endanger'' and
``public interest'' factors are addressed later in this evaluation.
The regulations in 10 CFR part 55 implement Section 107 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), which sets requirements
upon the Commission concerning operators' licenses and states, in part,
that the Commission shall (1) ``prescribe uniform conditions for
licensing individuals as operators of any of the various classes of . .
. utilization facilities licensed'' by the NRC and (2) ``determine the
qualifications of such individuals.''
These requirements in the AEA do not expressly prohibit exemptions
to the portion of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) that requires the use of a PRS or
the facility for control manipulations. Further, as explained below,
the exemption has little impact on the uniformity of licensing
conditions, and little impact on the determinations of qualifications.
In a letter from Ms. Karen Fili, Vice President, VEGP 3 & 4
Operational Readiness, to the NRC dated September 18, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15265A107), the facility licensee requested Commission
approval of the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 to support the
administration of operator licensing examinations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The publicly-available portions of the Commission-approved
simulation facility request submittal (``CAS request submittal'')
and enclosures are available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15265A107.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390, SNC requested that some information be
withheld from public disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff's evaluation of the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4
concluded that the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 provides the
necessary reactor physics, thermal hydraulic, and integrated system
modeling of the reference plant (i.e., the AP1000 plant as described in
the design certification) necessary to perform operator license
examinations. This modeling includes the predicted core performance
instead of the most recent core load. Because VEGP 3 & 4 is under
construction, plant experience from the most recent core load is not
available. Predicted core performance is acceptable because operating
experience with core design has demonstrated that the reactor physics
and thermal hydraulic characteristics associated with a core design can
be accurately predicted. As described in the staff's evaluation of the
simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4, simulator performance testing has
demonstrated that the core performance predictions have been accurately
modeled.
The staff's evaluation of the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4
concluded that the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 is capable of
providing a wide range of scenarios that address the 13 items in 10 CFR
55.45(a) without procedural exceptions, simulator performance
exceptions, or deviation from the approved examination scenario
sequence. Control manipulations are a subset of actions included in
these scenarios and have a defined scope that is significantly less
than an exam scenario. Because of the reduced scope, the presence of
existing simulator discrepancies in any training scenarios that provide
applicants with the opportunity to provide the required control
manipulations is even less likely as compared to operating tests.
Therefore, there exists a large variety of control manipulations that
can be completed without procedural exceptions, simulator performance
exceptions, or deviation from the approved training scenario sequence.
Further, the conditions under which the applicants are licensed
will be essentially unchanged, and the usage of the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS in
place of a PRS will not significantly change how the Commission
determines the qualifications of applicants. Under the exemption, 10
CFR 55.31(a)(5) will continue to require the applicant to perform, at a
minimum, five significant control manipulations that affect reactivity
or power level.
For purposes of control manipulations, the staff has already
determined in its safety evaluation documenting Commission-approval of
the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16070A301) that the facility sufficiently models the systems of the
reference plant, including the operating consoles, and permits use of
the reference plant's procedures. Facility licensees that propose to
use a PRS to meet the control manipulation requirements in 10 CFR
55.31(a)(5) must ensure that:
(i) The plant-referenced simulator utilizes models relating to
nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the
most recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which
a license is being sought; and
(ii) Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that
significant control manipulations are completed without procedural
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the
approved training scenario sequence.
In its safety evaluation documenting Commission-approval of the
simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4, the staff found that the VEGP 3 & 4
Commission-approved simulation facility meets these criteria and,
therefore, is equivalent to a PRS with respect to performing control
[[Page 20692]]
manipulations. Thus, the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 is an
acceptable simulation facility for meeting the experience requirements
in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5).
Accordingly, because a PRS and the Commission-approved simulation
facility for VEGP 3 & 4 are essentially the same with respect to
control manipulations, an exemption from 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) allowing
the use of the Commission-approved simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4
in lieu of a PRS or the facility for control manipulations will still
satisfy the applicable statutory requirements of the AEA that the
Commission prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals as
operators and determine the qualifications of operators.
The acceptability of the simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 with
respect to the significant control manipulations required by 10 CFR
55.31(a)(5) is additionally assured by the fact that SNC performs
scenario-based testing (SBT) for scenarios used to satisfy the control
manipulation requirement. To ensure that simulator discrepancies and/or
procedure issues do not affect control manipulations, SNC, as a
standard practice in accordance with its licensing basis, implements
SBT in accordance with Revision 1 of NEI 09-09, ``Nuclear Power Plant-
Referenced Simulator Scenario Based Testing Methodology.'' \3\ The NRC
staff endorsed NEI 09-09 in Regulatory Guide 1.149, Revision 4, dated
April 2011. NEI 09-09 describes SBT as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ By letter dated March 23, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16083A463), SNC stated that it conforms to Revision 1 of NEI 09-
09.
Key to the SBT Methodology is parallel testing and evaluation of
simulator performance while instructors validate simulator training
and evaluation scenarios. As instructors validate satisfactory
completion of training or evaluation objectives, procedure steps and
scenario content, they are also ensuring satisfactory simulator
performance in parallel, not series, making the process an
``online'' method of evaluating simulator performance. Also critical
is the assembly of the SBT package--the collection of a marked-up
scenario, appropriate procedures, monitored parameters, an alarm
summary and an affirmation checklist that serves as the proof of the
robust nature of this method of performance testing. Proper conduct
of the SBT Methodology is intended to alleviate the need for post-
scenario evaluation of simulator performance since the performance
of the simulator is being evaluated (i.e.: compared to actual or
predicted reference plant performance) during the parallel conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of SBT and scenario validation.
Therefore, since the Commission-approved simulation facility for
VEGP 3 & 4 conforms to the same control manipulation requirements as a
PRS, the NRC staff will continue to comply with its requirements
governing uniformity and operator qualifications.
Accordingly, for the reasons above, and in light of the reasons
discussed in Sections 2 and 3 below, the Commission concludes that the
exemption is authorized by law.
2. The Exemption Will Not Endanger Life or Property
As discussed above, as part of its review and approval of SNC's
request for a Commission-approved simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4,
the staff found that the simulator demonstrates expected plant response
to operator input and to normal, transient, and accident conditions to
which the simulator has been designed to respond. Further, the staff
found that the simulator is designed and implemented so that (i) it is
sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of the evolutions
listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1) through (13), and 10 CFR 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A)
through (AA), as applicable to the design of the reference plant and
(ii) it allows for the completion of control manipulations for operator
license applicants. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the
simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 will replicate reference plant
performance for the significant control manipulations required by 10
CFR 55.31(a)(5).
Because the Commission-approved simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4
matches the criteria of a PRS with respect to control manipulations,
the staff concludes that there is no basis to find endangerment of life
or property as a consequence of the exemption.
3. The Exemption Is Otherwise in the Public Interest
The Commission's values guide the NRC in maintaining certain
principles as it carries out regulatory activities in furtherance of
its safety and security mission. These principles focus the NRC on
ensuring safety and security while appropriately considering the
interests of the NRC's stakeholders, including the public and
licensees. These principles include Independence, Openness, Efficiency,
Clarity, and Reliability. Whether the grant of an exemption to the
requirement to use a PRS or the facility rather than the Commission-
approved simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 would be in the public
interest depends on the consideration and balancing of the foregoing
factors.
Concerning Efficiency, the public has an interest in the best
possible management and administration of regulatory activities.
Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk
reduction they achieve. Where several effective alternatives are
available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be
adopted. Regulatory decisions should be made without undue delay. As
applied to using a CAS rather than a PRS or the facility, in light of
the Commission's findings that the capabilities of the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS
are equivalent to those of a PRS for control manipulations, the usage
of the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS provides both an effective and an efficient
alternative for the VEGP 3 & 4 operator license applicant to gain the
required experience.
Concerning Reliability, once established, regulations should be
perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of
transition. Regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with
written regulations and should be promptly, fairly, and decisively
administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and
planning processes. Here, where the staff has already found that the
VEGP 3 & 4 CAS is equivalent to a PRS with respect to control
manipulations, the substantive requirements upon the operator license
applicant are unchanged with the granting of the exemption. Further,
the public has an interest in reliability in terms of the stability of
the nuclear planning process. This exemption aids planning by allowing
operator license applicants to complete their applications sooner, with
the underlying requirements essentially unchanged, and could result in
licensing decisions being made earlier than would be possible if the
applicants had to wait for a PRS to be available.
Concerning Clarity, there should be a clear nexus between
regulations and agency goals and objectives whether explicitly or
implicitly stated. Agency positions should be readily understood and
easily applied. For the reasons explained in the NRC's evaluation of
the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS, the CAS is sufficient for administering operating
tests, and is able to meet the requirements of a PRS with respect to
control manipulations. The exemption accordingly recognizes that the
capabilities of the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS are suitable to accomplish the
regulatory purpose underlying the requirements of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5).
The exemption is also consistent with the principles of
Independence and Openness; the Commission has independently and
objectively considered the regulatory interests involved and has
explicitly documented its reasons for issuing the exemption.
[[Page 20693]]
Accordingly, on balance the Commission concludes that the exemption
is in the public interest.
Conclusion
The Commission concludes that the exemption is (1) authorized by
law and (2) will not endanger life or property and (3) is otherwise in
the public interest. Therefore, in lieu of the requirements of 10 CFR
55.31(a)(5), the Commission will accept evidence that the applicant for
a VEGP 3 & 4 operator license has completed the required manipulations
on the VEGP 3 & 4 Commission-approved simulation facility that meets
the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(b), rather than on a PRS or the
facility.
Expiration and Limitation
This exemption will expire when a VEGP 3 & 4 plant-referenced
simulator that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 55.46(c) is available.
Furthermore, this exemption is subject to the condition that the
Commission-approved simulation facility for VEGP 3 & 4 continues to
model the reference plant with sufficient scope and fidelity, in
accordance with 10 CFR 55.46(c) and (d).
Environmental Consideration
This exemption allows the five significant control manipulations
required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) to be performed on the VEGP 3 & 4 CAS
that has been approved for the administration of operating tests
instead of on the VEGP 3 & 4 facility or a PRS.
For the following reasons, this exemption meets the eligibility
criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) for a categorical exclusion. There is
no significant hazards consideration related to this exemption. The
staff has also determined that the exemption involves no significant
increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any
effluents that may be released offsite; that there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation
exposure; that there is no significant construction impact; and that
there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences
from radiological accidents. Finally, the requirements to which the
exemption applies involve qualification requirements. Accordingly, the
exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
55.11, issuing this exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR
55.31(a)(5) is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property
and is otherwise in the public interest. The Commission will accept
evidence of control manipulations performed on the VEGP 3 & 4
Commission-approved simulation facility instead of on the VEGP 3 & 4
facility or a PRS.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark Delligatti,
Deputy Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New
Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2016-08122 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P