Text

Review of Commitment Change Report for 2009
	ML111680460
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/30/2011
From:	Sanders C; Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Chernoff H; Plant Licensing Branch 1
	Sandeers, Carleen, NRR/DORL, 415-1603
References
	TAC ME4254
	Download: ML111680460 (3)
	v • d • e

June 30, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO:

Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Carleen J. Sanders, Project Manager /ra/

Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 - REVIEW OF COMMITMENT CHANGE REPORT FOR 2009 (TAC NO. ME4254)

BACKGROUND By letter dated June 30, 2010 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML101940335), Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc (DNC or the licensee) submitted the Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, 3, (MPS 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48 Change Report for 2008 and 2009, and the Commitment Change Report for 2009. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the Project Managers review of the Commitment Change Report for 2009. The other information contained in the June 30, 2010, letter is being reviewed separately.

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW DNC stated in the June 30, 2010, letter that [d]uring 2009 there were no commitment changes for MPS1, MPS3 and ISFSI, however, there were eleven commitment changes made for MPS2. In accordance with Millstone Power Stations Commitment Management Program, these 11 changes were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

DNC requested an exemption to 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) for MPS2 by letter dated November 5, 2004, which was subsequently authorized by the NRC on February 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050420058). Eleven limitations and/or conditions were required by the NRC as part of the exemption.

The June 30, 2010, letter informed the NRC that DNC took action to remove the 11 commitments associated with the MPS2 exemption from 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). In accordance with DNCs commitment management program, the 11 commitments were reviewed to determine the appropriate path for removing the commitments. During the review, DNC incorrectly determined that the 11 limitation and/or conditions of the exemption were

commitments and not obligations. As a result, DNC determined that the limitations and/or conditions could be removed without prior approval from the NRC. However, changing or removing an obligation requires prior NRC approval. I spoke with Mr. Bill Bartron, of DNCs staff, regarding this. Mr. Bartron has agreed to place this issue into DNCs corrective action program. By removing the limitation and/or conditions the NRC staff relied on in its safety conclusion for the MPS2 exemption, part of the underlying basis for authorizing the exemption was removed.

On November 16, 2006 (71 FR 66652), the NRC amended 10 CFR 50.68 so that exemptions to 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) would no longer be needed. In the backfit analysis section of the new rule, it states that:

For licenses with an approved exemption, no action is required by the licensee.

The exemption permitted licensees to be exempt from the criticality accident requirements of 10 CFR 50.68 for fuel being loaded into a licensed dry storage cask. These licensees can continue operating under their approved exemption.

However, a licensee may instead choose to comply with the amended rule.

Operating under the exemption or the amended rule have effectively the same criticality accident requirements for fuel within a package or cask in a spent fuel pool, namely only those of 10 CFR Part 71 or Part 72, as applicable.

I spoke with Mr. William Bartron, regarding the discrepancy in the actions taken. Mr. Bartron stated that it is DNCs intention to follow the new rule and that the exemption is no longer needed. He also stated he understood the discrepancy in the actions taken and that DNC will inform the NRC by letter that MPS2 will be following the new rule and will no longer be using the exemption. Once the exemption is removed from MPS3s license, the 11 limitations and/or conditions are no longer needed. Based on these proposed actions, I have no further concerns with the MPS2 Commitment Change Report for 2009.

CONCLUSION I have reviewed the 2009 Commitment Change Report for MPS2 and discussed the above issues with DNC as described above. Based on DNCs intended actions, I do not recommend any further Division of Operating Reactor Licensing actions. Mr. Don Jackson, of the Region 1 staff, has been informed of the above issues for consideration in the overall reactor oversight process. As such, this completes my review and TAC ME4254 will be closed.

A commitment audit is planned to be performed later this year, in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Division for Operating Reactor Licensing handbook. The last commitment audit at Millstone Power Station was performed in 2008.