ML120950598

Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 - Withdrawal of Requested Licensing Action License Amendment Regarding Relocation of Specific Surveillance Frequency Requirements to a Licensee-Controlled Program - Adoption of Technical Specification Task Fo

ML120950598
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	04/11/2012
From:	Sanders C J Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Heacock D A Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
Sandeers, Carleen, NRR/DORL, 415-1603
References
TAC ME7976
Download: ML120950598 (3)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 11 ,2012 Mr. David A. Heacock President and Chief Nuclear Officer Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060-6711 MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO.2 -WITHDRAWAL OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: LICENSE AMENDMENT REGARDING RELOCATION OF SPECIFIC SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS TO A LICENSEE-CONTROLLED PROGRAM -ADOPTION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION TASK FORCE 425, REVISION 3 (TAC NO. ME7976) Dear Mr. Heacock: By letter dated January 25,2012,1 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC or the licensee) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for Millstone Power Station, Unit No.2 (MPS2). The proposed amendment would relocate certain technical specification (TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program by adopting Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3,2 "Relocate Surveillance Frequencies of Licensee Control -Informed Technical Specification Task Force Initiative 5b." The proposed change would also add a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to the TSs, in accordance with TSTF-425. TSTF-425 is approved for use by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and was announced in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). By letter dated April 2, 2012,3 DNC requested to withdraw the application from NRC review. The NRC acknowledges your request to withdraw the application. NRC staff activities on the review have ceased and the associated Technical Assignment Control (TAC) No. ME7976 will be closed. Prior to the request to withdraw the LAR, the NRC staff completed its acceptance review. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant. Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license (including the Technical Specifications) must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. 1 Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12032A224 2 ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642 3 ADAMS Accession No. ML 12097 A066 D. -2 This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations. The NRC staff notes that its review to date has identified that your application did not provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed review. DNC's LAR indicates that a peer review was performed in 1999 and a self assessment was performed in 2007 for the MPS2 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The LAR also identifies that the PRA model has been revised periodically and it appears that the revision performed since 2007 included changes to the PRA model to address findings from the self assessment. It is unclear to the NRC staff if all of these changes were done in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 1, "An Approach For Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results For Risk-Informed Activities."4 Therefore, if you decide to re-submit the request, to help clarify the NRC's understanding of these changes, it must include the following information: Summarize the major changes made to the PRA model since the 2007 self assessment. Identify any changes made to the PRA that are consistent with the definition of a "PRA upgrade" in the American Society of Engineers/American Nuclear Society Sa-2009, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.200. If any changes are characterized as a PRA upgrade, please identify if a focused-scope peer review was performed for these changes consistent with the guidance in ASME/ANS-RA-Sa-2009, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.200, and describe the resolution of any findings from that focused-scope peer review. If a focused-scope peer review has not been performed for changes characterized as a PRA upgrade, please describe and provide the results of a sensitivity study that bounds the potential impact of these changes on this application. If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1603. t; Carleen J. ers, Project Manager Plant Lice Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-336 cc: Distribution via Listserv 4 ADAMS Accession No. ML070240001 D. -2 This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations. The NRC staff notes that its review to date has identified that your application did not provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed review. DNC's LAR indicates that a peer review was performed in 1999 and a self assessment was performed in 2007 for the MPS2 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The LAR also identifies that the PRA model has been revised periodically and it appears that the revision performed since 2007 included changes to the PRA model to address findings from the self assessment. It is unclear to the NRC staff if all of these changes were done in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 1, "An Approach For Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results For Risk-Informed Activities."4 Therefore, if you decide to re-submit the request, to help clarify the NRC's understanding of these changes, it must include the following information: Summarize the major changes made to the PRA model since the 2007 self assessment. Identify any changes made to the PRA that are consistent with the definition of a "PRA upgrade" in the American Society of Engineers/American Nuclear Society Sa-2009, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.200. If any changes are characterized as a PRA upgrade, please identify if a focused-scope peer review was performed for these changes consistent with the guidance in ASME/ANS-RA-Sa-2009, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.200, and describe the resolution of any findings from that focused-scope peer review. If a focused-scope peer review has not been performed for changes characterized as a PRA upgrade, please describe and provide the results of a sensitivity study that bounds the potential impact of these changes on this application. If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1603. Sincerely, Ira! Carleen J. Sanders, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-336 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC Branch Reading File RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrDraApla Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsN rrDorlLpl1-2 Resource RidsNrrLAABaxter Resource RidsNrrPMMilistone Resource RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgnXMailCenter Resource RidsNrrDssStsb Resource ADAMS Accession No. ML120950598 DORULPL 1-2/PM DORLlLPL1-2/LA DRAIAPLA/BC DSS/STSB/BC DORULPL1-2/BC DORULPL 1-2/PM DHarrison CSanders 4/9/12 ABaxter (SUttle for) 4/5/12 RElllot 4/8/12 4/9/12 MKhanna CSanders 4/11/12 4/11/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4 ADAMS Accession No. ML070240001