ML25050A573
| ML25050A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/2025 |
| From: | Wetzel B NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL3 |
| To: | Hafen S Northern States Power Company, Minnesota |
| Wetzel B, NRR/DORL/LPL3 | |
| References | |
| EPID 2025-LLA-0030 | |
| Download: ML25050A573 (1) | |
Text
March 7, 2025 Shawn Hafen Site Vice President Northern States Power Company - Minnesota Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362
SUBJECT:
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 214 TO REVISE THE EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEME (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES) (EPID-2025-LLA-0030)
Dear Shawn Hafen:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 214 to Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 1 (MNGP). The amendment consists of changes to the Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme used with the Xcel Energy Standard Emergency Plan at the MNGP in response to your application dated February 7, 2025. Specifically, the amendment permanently revises EAL HU3.6 to include a duration of 60 minutes or longer for river level less than 902.4 feet elevation.
This amendment is issued under exigent circumstances as provided in the provisions of paragraph 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations due to the time-critical nature of the amendment. In this instance, an exigent situation exists in that the amendment is needed to preclude an unnecessary emergency declaration should a river level transient challenge the river level indication during the remaining winter months.
A copy of the related safety evaluation is also enclosed. The safety evaluation describes the exigent circumstances under which the amendment is issued and provides a final no significant hazards consideration determination. Notice of issuance will be included in the Commissions monthly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Beth Wetzel, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-263
Enclosure:
- 1. Amendment No. 214 to DPR-22
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc: Listserv
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-263 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO SUBSEQUENT RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 214 Subsequent Renewed License No. DPR-22
- 1.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Northern States Power Company dated February 7, 2025, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 214, Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 1 Emergency Action Level Scheme, as set forth in the application dated February 7, 2025, and as evaluated in the NRC staffs safety evaluation issued with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 3 days of the date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Laura Dudes, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: March 7, 2025 LAURA DUDES Digitally signed by LAURA DUDES Date: 2025.03.07 09:03:52 -05'00'
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 214 TO SUBSEQUENT RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-263
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated February 7, 2025 (Reference 1), Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, doing business as Xcel Energy (the licensee), requested U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) review and prior approval of proposed changes to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 1 (MNGP) Emergency Plan pursuant to Section 50.54(q) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
Specifically, the licensee requested to change the Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme for MNGP by revising EAL HU3.6, which currently states River level less than 902.4 ft [feet]
elevation, to include a duration of for 60 minutes or longer.
As discussed in the license amendment request (LAR) dated February 7, 2025, the licensee requested that the proposed amendment be processed by the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) due to the time-critical nature of the amendment. In this instance, an exigent situation exists in that the amendment is needed to preclude an unnecessary emergency declaration should a river level transient challenge the river level indication during the remaining winter months. The NRC staffs evaluation regarding exigent circumstances is provided in section 4.0 of this safety evaluation.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
The regulations and guidance on which the NRC staff based this review are provided below.
2.1 Regulations The planning standards that onsite and offsite emergency response plans must meet for the NRC staff to make a finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency are established in 10 CFR 50.47(b). Under this regulation, onsite and offsite emergency response plans must meet, in part, the following standard:
A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures.
The use of a standard emergency classification and action level scheme ensures that implementation methods are relatively consistent throughout the industry for a given reactor and containment design, while simultaneously providing an opportunity for a licensee to modify its EAL scheme as necessary to address plant-specific design considerations or preferences.
In addition,Section IV.B.1 of Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, to 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, states, in part:
The means to be used for determining the magnitude of, and for continually assessing the impact of, the release of radioactive materials shall be described, including emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria for determining the need for notification and participation of local and State agencies, the Commission, and other Federal agencies, and the emergency action levels that are to be used for determining when and what type of protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety. The emergency action levels shall be based on in-plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite and offsite monitoring. By June 20, 2012, for nuclear power reactor licensees, these action levels must include hostile action that may adversely affect the nuclear power plant.
2.2 Guidance The current EAL scheme at MNGP is based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, dated November 2012 (Reference 2). By letter dated March 28, 2013 (Reference 3), the NRC endorsed NEI 99-01, Revision 6, as acceptable generic (i.e., non-plant-specific) guidance for developing plant-specific EALs that meet the standard of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and the requirements of Section IV.B.1 of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
In the LAR, the licensee proposed to change MNGP EAL HU3.6 from stating River level less than 902.4 ft elevation to stating River level less than 902.4 ft elevation for 60 minutes or longer. The licensee provided that this proposed change would be in alignment with the guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, and the specific circumstances at MNGP.
The guidance regarding EAL HU3.5 in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, provides that the intent on which MNGP EAL HU3.6 is based is to ensure that a Notification of Unusual Event (Unusual Event) classification is declared based upon Site-specific list of natural or technological hazard events, which should include other events that may be a precursor to a more significant event or condition, and that are appropriate to the site location and characteristics.
For MNGP, EAL HU3.6 is a site-specific hazard identified by the licensee to declare an Unusual Event when river level lowers to address low river flow conditions. The licensee stated that the basis for this EAL is that low river level may be a precursor to a loss of the plants ultimate heat sink (UHS) and, therefore, warrants further management attention. However, a river level of 902.4 feet is not associated with any safety-related or operating pump limits; for example, the circulating water pumps trip at 901.5 feet and the Technical Specifications UHS river level for operability is 899 feet.
The licensee is requesting the proposed change to MNGP EAL HU3.6 based on recent river transients in which the licensee observed level indication from the installed level instrument to change rapidly. Further, the licensee stated that restrictions in the flow path from the river to the intake due to ice and/or debris can cause sudden changes in level where the level instrument is located even though actual river level does not change rapidly. The licensee stated that since there is no actual rapid change in river level, there is no indication of potential imminent degradation in the operability of the UHS such that an Unusual Event should be declared.
The licensee stated that the proposed change to include a duration of 60 minutes or longer in MNGP EAL HU3.6 would exclude from consideration transient events affecting river level, which, in turn, would preclude unnecessary emergency declarations. In addition, the licensee also proposed to add to the EAL a note stating that With EAL HU3.6 the Emergency Director should declare the Unusual Event promptly upon determining that 60 minutes has been exceeded or will likely be exceeded. Therefore, if the river level lowered to less than 902.4 feet and it was expected to remain lower than 902.4 feet for 60 minutes or longer, the Emergency Director would declare the Unusual Event before the full 60-minute duration had elapsed. The NRC staff reviewed the proposed note and determined that it is consistent with the guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, for Emergency Directors to declare Unusual Events promptly upon determining that the applicable time has been or likely will be exceeded.
The licensee stated that the emergency classification and EAL change scheme has been agreed upon by the State and county governmental authorities that support the MNGP site. The licensee further stated that concurrences from the State of Minnesota, Sherburne County, and Wright County were received for this proposed EAL HU3.6 change.
The NRC staff reviewed the technical bases for the proposed EAL change and the licensees evaluation of the proposed EAL change. The guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, indicates that many EALs employ time-based criteria. These criteria generally require that the EAL conditions be present for a defined period of time before an emergency declaration is warranted. The guidance also stresses that the emergency classification assessment period is not a grace period during which a classification may be delayed to allow the performance of a corrective action that would obviate the need to classify the event; instead, emergency classification assessments must be deliberate and timely, with no undue delays.
Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the use of time-based criteria is consistent with the applicable guidance and precludes the potential for an unnecessary emergency declaration that would create unnecessary burden for offsite agencies and could degrade stakeholder confidence. The NRC staff also determined that the EAL, as proposed to be changed, would continue to not conflict with any safety-related or operating pump limits.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change meets 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B.1 of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The licensees EAL scheme, as proposed to be changed, is acceptable and continues to provide reasonable assurance that the licensee can and will take adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency.
4.0 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
The NRCs regulations contain provisions for issuance of amendments when the usual 30-day public comment period cannot be met. These provisions are applicable under exigent circumstances. Consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), exigent circumstances exist when: (1) a licensee and the NRC must act quickly; (2) time does not permit the NRC to publish a Federal Register notice allowing 30 days for prior public comment; and (3) the NRC determines that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. As discussed in the LAR, the licensee requested that the proposed amendment be processed by the NRC on an exigent basis.
Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), the NRC notifies the public in one of two ways when exigent circumstances exist: (1) by issuing a Federal Register notice providing an opportunity for hearing and allowing at least 2 weeks from the date of the notice for prior public comments; or (2) by using local media to provide reasonable notice to the public in the area surrounding the licensees facility. In this case, the NRC issued a Federal Register notice (February 20, 2025; 90 FR 9980) providing an opportunity for hearing and allowing at least 2 weeks from the date of the notice for prior public comments.
As discussed in the LAR, the licensee requested that the proposed amendment be processed by the NRC on an exigent basis, stating that:
The reason for the exigent review is to preclude an unnecessary emergency declaration should another transient challenge the indication during the remaining months (at least two) of the winter. The negative consequences of declaring an [Unusual Event] when the UHS is not degraded or threatened is sufficient to request an exigent review.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensees basis for requesting that the proposed amendment be processed by the NRC on an exigent basis and determined that an exigent situation exists consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). Furthermore, the NRC staff determined that the licensee: (1) used its best efforts to make a timely application for the amendment; (2) could not reasonably have avoided the situation; and (3) has not abused the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6).
Based on these findings, and the determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration as discussed below, the NRC staff has determined that a valid need exists for issuance of the license amendment using the exigent provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6).
5.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
DETERMINATION The NRCs regulation at 10 CFR 50.92(c) states that the NRC may make a final determination, under the procedures in 10 CFR 50.91, that a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility, in accordance with the amendment, would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), in its LAR, the licensee provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed change to the EAL for low river level does not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls hat function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change revises an EAL, which establishes the threshold for placing the plant in an emergency classification. EALs are not initiators of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel classing, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with an EAL and does not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect the operating license including Appendix A, the technical specifications. The proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change.
Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
The revised EAL provides more appropriate criteria for determining protective measures that should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety. The emergency plan will continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on its review of the licensees analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff has made a final determination that no significant hazards consideration is involved for the proposed amendment and that the amendment should be issued as allowed by the criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
6.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the Minnesota State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment on February 20, 2025. The State official had no comments.
7.0 DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS The NRC received two essentially identical public comments related to the proposed amendment (ML25063A114 and ML25063A115). These comments both assert that The licensee does not provide a basis to support [that] issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense. As summarized above, the NRC staff reviewed the licensees proposed change and determined that the licensee will continue to meet all applicable regulatory requirements after implementation of the proposed change. Therefore, as concluded below, issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (February 20, 2025; 90 FR 9980). No public comments were received related to this finding, but two comments were received related to the proposed amendment and are addressed above.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 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.
9.0 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 Commissions 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.
10.0 REFERENCES
- 1.
Letter from Xcel Energy to the NRC, License Amendment Request to Revise the Emergency Action Level Scheme, dated February 7, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25038A114).
- 2.
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, dated November 2012 (ML12326A805).
- 3.
Letter from Thaggard, M., NRC, to Perkins-Grew, S., NEI, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review and Endorsement of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, Dated November 2012 (TAC No. D92368), dated March 28, 2013 (ML12346A463).
Principal Contributor: K. Miller, NSIR Date: March 7, 2025
ML25050A573 NRR-058 OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL3/PM NRR/DORL/LPL3/LA NSIR/DPR/LLB/BC NAME BWetzel SRohrer JQuichocho DATE 2/19/2025 2/20/2025 2/14/2025 OFFICE OGC-NLO NRR/DORL/LPL3/BC (A)
NRR/DORL/D (A)
NAME JWachutka IBerrios JPelton DATE 02/24/2025 02/24/2025 2/25/2025 OFFICE NRR/D (A)
NRR/DORL/LPL3/PM NAME LDudes BWetzel DATE 3/7/2025 3/7/2025