ML16159A260
| ML16159A260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/2016 |
| From: | Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | Dominion Nuclear Connecticut |
| References | |
| CAC L53121 | |
| Download: ML16159A260 (3) | |
Text
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC., ET AL, DOCKET NO. 50-245 MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 28, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14093A028), the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC, the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 1 (MPS1)
Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications (PDTSs). The proposed changes would delete the PDTS Table of Contents and make other editorial and minor changes to the PDTSs.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to include technical specifications (TSs) as part of the license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) regulatory requirements related to the content of the TSs are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.36, Technical specifications. The TS requirements in 10 CFR 50.36 include the following categories: (1) safety limits, limiting safety systems settings and control settings, (2) limiting conditions for operation, (3) surveillance requirements (SRs), (4) design features, (5) administrative controls, (6) decommissioning, (7) initial notification, and (8) written reports.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Deletion of TS Table of Contents The licensee proposed to delete the entire MPS1 PDTS Table of Contents. Because the Table of Contents does not include TS or other requirements, this is an editorial change and does not involve any physical changes to structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled, and is, therefore, acceptable.
Enclosure 2
3.2 Revision to PDTS 5.3.2, Facility Staff Qualifications Current PDTS:
The operations manager or assistant operations manager shall be a CERTIFIED FUEL HANDLER.
Proposed change:
The operations manager or at least one operations middle manager shall be a CERTIFIED FUEL HANDLER."
PDTS 5.3.2 currently requires that each member of the facility staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N18.1-1971, "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," for comparable positions. This standard specifies that the operations manager hold an SRO license for the unit.
By letter dated July 21, 1998, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) certified to the NRC, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.82(a), that MPS1 had permanently ceased operations and that the fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Because licensed and senior licensed operators (SROs) were no longer required for a plant in a permanently defueled condition, the staff qualifications were modified (Reference 6.4) to require the operations manager or assistant operations manager to be a certified fuel handler. This change ensures that the certified fuel handlers report to a management individual with at least an equivalent level of qualification.
DNC proposes to revise PDTS 5.3.2 such that the operations manager or at least one operations middle manager shall be a certified fuel handler. Modifying the title in PDTS 5.3.2 to allow at least one operations middle manager (e.g., an assistant operations manager or the supervisor in charge of the operations shift crews) to be a certified fuel handler meets the intent of ANSI N18.1-1971. This change will allow the operations manager and other operations middle managers to perform higher level duties such as management, planning, and coordinating of operations activities.
The proposed change will continue to meet the training and qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.120 and the standards set forth in ANSI N18.1-1971 to ensure there is relevant operational experience and knowledge in senior operations management position(s).
3.3 Replacement of term SORC with the term FSRC The licensee proposes to replace the term "SORC" on pages 5.0-7, 5.0-8, and 5.0-9 with the term "FSRC." The term "SORC" which appears throughout the Administrative Controls section of the PDTSs, is no longer used at MPS. This acronym, which stood for Site Operations Review Committee, has been replaced with FSRC or Facility Safety Review Committee. Consequently, the term "SORC" will be replaced with "FSRC." This proposed change is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical changes to SSCs in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled.
The term SORC is no longer used at MPS1 as those functions are now performed by the Facility Safety Review Committee (FSRC). Accordingly, the acronym SORC has been replaced with FSRC. This proposed change updates the TS to include the current name of the committee, is corrective in nature, and does not involve any physical changes to SSCs in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled, and is, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves changes to administrative procedures or requirements and makes editorial, corrective or other minor revisions. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: T. Carter Date: June 06, 2016
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC., ET AL, DOCKET NO. 50-245 MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 28, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14093A028), the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC, the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 1 (MPS1)
Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications (PDTSs). The proposed changes would delete the PDTS Table of Contents and make other editorial and minor changes to the PDTSs.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to include technical specifications (TSs) as part of the license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) regulatory requirements related to the content of the TSs are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.36, Technical specifications. The TS requirements in 10 CFR 50.36 include the following categories: (1) safety limits, limiting safety systems settings and control settings, (2) limiting conditions for operation, (3) surveillance requirements (SRs), (4) design features, (5) administrative controls, (6) decommissioning, (7) initial notification, and (8) written reports.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Deletion of TS Table of Contents The licensee proposed to delete the entire MPS1 PDTS Table of Contents. Because the Table of Contents does not include TS or other requirements, this is an editorial change and does not involve any physical changes to structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled, and is, therefore, acceptable.
Enclosure 2
3.2 Revision to PDTS 5.3.2, Facility Staff Qualifications Current PDTS:
The operations manager or assistant operations manager shall be a CERTIFIED FUEL HANDLER.
Proposed change:
The operations manager or at least one operations middle manager shall be a CERTIFIED FUEL HANDLER."
PDTS 5.3.2 currently requires that each member of the facility staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N18.1-1971, "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," for comparable positions. This standard specifies that the operations manager hold an SRO license for the unit.
By letter dated July 21, 1998, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) certified to the NRC, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.82(a), that MPS1 had permanently ceased operations and that the fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Because licensed and senior licensed operators (SROs) were no longer required for a plant in a permanently defueled condition, the staff qualifications were modified (Reference 6.4) to require the operations manager or assistant operations manager to be a certified fuel handler. This change ensures that the certified fuel handlers report to a management individual with at least an equivalent level of qualification.
DNC proposes to revise PDTS 5.3.2 such that the operations manager or at least one operations middle manager shall be a certified fuel handler. Modifying the title in PDTS 5.3.2 to allow at least one operations middle manager (e.g., an assistant operations manager or the supervisor in charge of the operations shift crews) to be a certified fuel handler meets the intent of ANSI N18.1-1971. This change will allow the operations manager and other operations middle managers to perform higher level duties such as management, planning, and coordinating of operations activities.
The proposed change will continue to meet the training and qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.120 and the standards set forth in ANSI N18.1-1971 to ensure there is relevant operational experience and knowledge in senior operations management position(s).
3.3 Replacement of term SORC with the term FSRC The licensee proposes to replace the term "SORC" on pages 5.0-7, 5.0-8, and 5.0-9 with the term "FSRC." The term "SORC" which appears throughout the Administrative Controls section of the PDTSs, is no longer used at MPS. This acronym, which stood for Site Operations Review Committee, has been replaced with FSRC or Facility Safety Review Committee. Consequently, the term "SORC" will be replaced with "FSRC." This proposed change is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical changes to SSCs in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled.
The term SORC is no longer used at MPS1 as those functions are now performed by the Facility Safety Review Committee (FSRC). Accordingly, the acronym SORC has been replaced with FSRC. This proposed change updates the TS to include the current name of the committee, is corrective in nature, and does not involve any physical changes to SSCs in the plant, or the way SSCs are operated or controlled, and is, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves changes to administrative procedures or requirements and makes editorial, corrective or other minor revisions. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: T. Carter Date: June 06, 2016