ML15299A220

San Onofre, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w(1)

ML15299A220
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/22/2015
From:	Palmisano T J Southern California Edison Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML15299A220 (15)

Text

JSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SEDISONAn EDISON INTERNATIONAL CompanyThomas I. Palmisano Vice President Decommissioning

&Chief Nuclear OfficerOctober 22, 201510 CFR 50.1210 CFR 50.54(w)(1)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control DeskWashington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-206, 50-361, and 50-362Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w(1)

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3

References:

1. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, datedMarch 8, 1993,

Subject:

Certification of Permanently Defueled Status, SONGSUnit 12. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, datedMarch 10, 1993,

Subject:

Corrected Copy of Letter Certifying Permanently Defueled Status, SONGS Unit 13. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,) dated June 12, 2013;

Subject:

Certification ofPermanent Cessation of Power Operations, San Onofre NuclearGenerating

Station, Units 2 and 3*4. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,) dated June 28, 2013;

Subject:

Permanent Removal ofFuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 35. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated July 22, 2013;

Subject:

Permanent Removal of Fuelfrom the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12,"Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE) requests apermanent exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS) Units 1, 2 and 3. 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires individual power reactor licensees toobtain insurance coverage from private sources to provide protection covering the licensee's obligation, in the unlikely event of an accident, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor andthe reactor site. Specifically, licensees must obtain insurance having a minimum coverage limitfor each reactor station site of either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less. This insurance coverage is referred to as"onsite insurance coverage."

P.O. Box 128San Clemente, CA.92674(949) 368-6575Fax: (949) 368-6183tomn.palmisano@sce.

comnfl Document Control Desk --Oobr2,21-2-Ocotber 22, 2015SCE is requesting an exemption to 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for SONGS that would reduce theminimum coverage limit of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to $50 million for SONGS.The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure adequate funding of onsite post-accident

recovery, stabilization anddecontamination costs following an accident at an operating nuclear power plant. However, theregulation does not take into consideration the reduced potential for, and consequences of,such nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown facilities.

The SONGS facility is permanently shut down and defueled (References 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). The proposed exemption would allow areduction in the level of onsite insurance protection for SONGS to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled status of the facility and the underlying purpose of the rule.The proposed exemption request reflects the reduced risk associated with SONGS in thepermanently defueled condition.

It would allow a commensurate reduction in onsite insurance coverage.

Operations of SONGS in accordance with this exemption request will continue toprovide adequate financial protection for the appropriate stakeholders.

The exemption request is provided in Attachment 1 to this letter. SCE respectfully requests thatthis exemption be granted as soon as reasonably possible to relieve the financial burden ofmaintaining unnecessarily higher levels of onsite insurance coverage.

There are no new regulatory commitments made within this submittal.

If there are any questions, please call Mr. Jim Kay, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory

Affairs, at(949) 368-7418.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on 2015.I,Sincerely, Attachment 1, Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.55(w)(1)

CC: M. Dapas, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IVM. Vaaler, NRC Project Manager, SONGS Units 1, 2 and 3T. Wengert, NRC Project ManagerR. L. Kellar, Region IV, Branch Chief, Repository and Spent Fuel Safety Attachment 1Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1

)San Onofre Nuclear Generating StationUnits 1, 2 and 3 1San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1)

I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED EXEMPTION Pursuant to 10 CER 50.12, "Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE) requests apermanent exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS).

10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires individual power reactor licensees to obtain insurance coverage from private sources to provide protection covering the licensees obligation, in theunlikely event of an accident, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and the reactor site.Specifically, licensees must obtain insurance having a minimum coverage limit for each reactorstation site of either $1 .06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available fromprivate sources, whichever is less. This insurance coverage is referred to as "onsite coverage" or "onsite insurance coverage."

SCE is requesting an exemption to 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to reduce the minimum coverage limit of10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to $50 million for SONGS.10 CER 50.54(w)(1) reads as follows:"(w) Each power reactor/licensee under this part for a production or utilization facility of thetype described in §§ 50.2 1(b) or 50.22 shall take reasonable steps to obtain insurance available at reasonable costs and on reasonable terms from private sources or todemonstrate to the satisfaction of the NRC that it possesses an equivalent amount ofprotection covering the licensee's obligation, in the event of an accident at the licensee's

reactor, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and the reactor station site at which thereactor experiencing the accident is/located, provided that:(1) The insurance required by paragraph (w) of this section must have a minimumcoverage limit for each reactor station site of either $1.06 billion or whatever amount ofinsurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The requiredinsurance must clearly state that, as and to the extent provided in paragraph (w)(4) ofthis section, any proceeds must be payable first for stabilization of the reactor and nextfor decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site. If a licensee's coveragefalls below the required

minimum, the licensee shall within 60 days take all reasonable steps to restore its coverage to the required minimum.

The required insurance may, atthe option of the licensee, be included within policies that also provide coverage for otherrisks, including, but not limited to, the risk of direct physical damage."II. BACKGROUND SONGS Unit 1 commercially generated power from January 1, 1968 until November 30, 1992.SONGS Unit 1 was permanently defueled on March 6, 1993 (References 1 and 2) and wasmaintained in SAFSTOR until June 1999, when decommissioning was initiated.

Spent fuel hasbeen removed from SONGS Unit 1 and is stored in the SONGS Independent Spent FuelStorage Installation at SONGS and in the GE-Hitachi Morris facility in Illinois.

All SONGS Unit 1above ground structures have been removed.SONGS Units 2 and 3 commercially generated power until they permanently ceased operation and were defueled.

By letter dated June 12, 2013 (Reference 3), Southern California Edison 2(SCE) submitted a certification to the NRC indicating its intention to permanently cease poweroperations at SONGS Units 2 and 3, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i).

On June 28, 2013,SCE submitted a certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel for SONGSUnit 3 (Reference

4) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).

On July 22, 2013, SCE submitted acertification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel for SONGS Unit 2 (Reference

5) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).

Upon docketing of these certifications, the 10 CFR Part50 licenses for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorize operation of the reactor oremplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2).

SONGS Units 2 and 3 have been shut down since January 2012. At the time of this submittal, itwill have been over three years since the most recent irradiation of spent fuel currently stored inthe Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools. It is expected that SONGS Units 2 and 3 will remain in a wetfuel storage configuration for approximately three to five years. SONGS poses significantly lower risk to the public health and safety in this defueled condition.

Ill. DISCUSSION The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure adequate funding of onsite post-accident

recovery,

'stabilization anddecontamination costs following an accident at an operating nuclear power plant. Therequirements of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) were developed taking into consideration the risksassociated with an operating nuclear power reactor, including the potential consequences of arelease of radioactive material from the reactor.

However, the regulation does not take intoconsideration the reduced potential for and consequences'bf nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown and defueled facilities like SONGS. The proposed exemption would allow a reduction in the level of onsite insurance coverage to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled status of SONGS and the underlying purpose of the rule.Although the likelihood of an accident at an operating reactor is small, the consequences can belarge, in part due to the high temperatures and pressures of the reactor coolant system as wellas the inventory of radionuclides.

For a, permanently shutdown and defueled

reactor, nuclearaccidents involving the reactor and its associated

systems, structures and components are nolonger possible.

Furthermore, the. probability and consequences of non-operating reactornuclear incidents are substantially reduced because:

1) the decay heat from the spent fueldecreases over time, which reduces the amount of cooling required to prevent the spent fuelfrom heating up to a temperature that could compromise the ability of the fuel cladding to retainfission products; and 2) the decay of the relatively short-lived radionuclides contained in thespent fuel reduces the inventory of radioactive materials available for release, particularly withrespect to the inventory of volatile components like iodine and noble gasses.Although the potential for, and consequences of, nuclear accidents decline substantially after aplant permanently defuels its reactor, they are not completely eliminated.

There are potential radiological consequences that could be associated with the onsite storage of the spent fuel inthe spent fuel pool (SFP). In addition, a site with a permanently shutdown and defueled reactormay contain an inventory of radioactive

liquids, activated reactor components, andcontaminated materials.

For purposes of modifying the amount of onsite insurance coveragemaintained by a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor licensee, the potential radiological consequences of these non-operating reactor nuclear incidents are appropriate to consider, despite their very low probability of occurrence.

As discussed below, the scope and severity ofonsite and offsite consequences, if any, are substantially reduced given that all SONGS unitshave been defueled and permanently retired.

3This request is consistent with Staff rulemaking and policy proposals contained in Staff lettersSECY-00-01 45,111Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning" (Reference

6) and SECY-01-0100, "Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, andEmergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuelin Spent Fuel Pools." (Reference 7).The proposed exemption would allow a reduction in the level of financial protection againstonsite liability at SONGS to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled statusof the facility and the underlying purpose of the rule. This requested change would maintain aconservative level of financial protection considered commensurate with the significant reduction in the probability and consequences of potential nuclear incidents at SONGS Units 1,2 and 3. Consistent with the NRC's conclusions documented in SECY-00-0145, this reducedfinancial protection insurance coverage would continue to conservatively ensure adequatefunding of onsite post accident

recovery, stabilization and decontamination following an accidentat an operating nuclear power plant.A. Reduced Scope and Severity of Radiological Accidents at SONGSSONGS Unit 1 ceased operations on November 30, 1992. SONGS Unit 1 was permanently defueled and was maintained in SAFSTOR until June 1999, when decommissioning wasinitiated.

All spent fuel has been removed from SONGS Unit 1 and is stored in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISESI) at SONGS and in the GE-Hitachi Morris facility in Illinois.

All SONGS Unit 1 above ground structures have been removed.SONGS Units 2 and 3 permanently ceased operation in June, 2013. All nuclear fuel has beenremoved from their reactor vessels.

The irradiated'fuel will be stored in the spent fuel pool(SEP) and in the ISFSI until it is shipped offsite.

In this condition, the number of credibleaccidents/transients is significantly smaller than for a plant authorized to operate the reactor oremplace or retain fuel in the reactor vessel.As indicated in SCE's request for Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference 8), the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report has beenupdated to revise the Chapter 1 5Safety Analysis section for conformance with the defueledstatus of the reactors.

Reference 9 submitted a revision of Chapter 15 to the NRC to aid in thevarious ongoing reviews.

These updates demonstrate that the offsite consequences of theremaining design basis accidents would be considerably less than during reactor operations.

The NRC has reviewed and confirmed these results as part of the approval of the Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference 10).B. Plant-Specific Analyses of Beyond Design Basis EventsSONGS Units 2 and 3 Loss of Cooling Water Inventory with No Air CoolingSCE's request for Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference

8) assupplemented by Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request (Reference 11, 12, and 13) also summarize the results ofevaluations of a beyond design basis scenario involving a completely drained spent fuel pooland blocked air flow passages.

With no water cooling or convective air cooling (adiabatic analysis case), the maximum zirconium temperature is expected to remain below 900°C, thetemperature at which uncontrolled oxidation could occur, for sufficient time for SCE to take 4mitigative actions.

Based on the summarized analysis the time for the cladding on the hottestfuel assembly to heat up to 90000 would be over 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. The time to heat up to the lowesttemperature where clad swelling and incipient cladding failure might occur (565°0) would beover 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.The evaluated and demonstrated time to deploy mitigation strategy equipment using minimumPost Defueled Emergency Planning staffing levels is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.Direct and scattered radiological dose rates were calculated for this fully drained configuration ofthe spent fuel pool. At the site Exclusion Area Boundary the dose rates were shown to be asmall fraction of the established threshold for emergency protective actions for the public (EPAProtective Action Guidelines).

SONGS Units 2 and 3 Loss of Cooling Water Inventory with Air CoolingAn evaluation has also been done for a beyond design basis scenario involving a completely drained spent fuel pool without blocked air passages.

The calculations determined that underthe bounding conservative modeling scenario August 31, 2014 is the date by which spent fuelhas decayed such that its internal heat generation rate is low enough to preclude the zirconium cladding from reaching 565°0, well below the 90000 threshold for uncontrolled zirconium oxidation.

Fuel Handling Building temperatures were modeled based on normal ventilation supply andexhaust system subsystem operation as described in UFSAR Section 9.4.3.1 using theGOTHIC computer program.

Local variations in solar heat loads were calculated using theUHSSIM computer program.

The maximum steady-state temperature of the zirconium claddingwas calculated using the COBRA program with a conservative set of heat transfer assumptions for natural air circulation in the spent fuel racks.The analysis used a realistic estimate for the total spent fuel heat generation rate calculated using the methodology described in NUREG-0800, Rev.2, Branch Technical Position (BTP)ASB 9-2, "Residual Decay Energy for Light-Water Reactors for Long-Term Cooling" andbench marked against measurements performed in 2011. All other inputs are based on thecurrent plant configuration; no planned design changes were considered.

The boundingassembly heat generation rate is taken from the ORIGEN model.The analysis shows that the surface temperature of the cladding in the spent fuel pools will notexceed 56500 following a hypothetical total loss of water from the spent fuel pool on or afterAugust 31, 2014. A~iequate cooling is maintained due to heat rejection to the surrounding fuelassemblies and from the spent fuel pool to the outside, primarily via the fuel handling buildingventilation system.C. NRC Proposed Rulemaking The NRC staff has generically evaluated the legal, technical, and policy issues regarding thefinancial protection requirements for large nuclear power plants that have been permanently shut down. The results of these evaluations were summarized in SECY-96-256 (Reference 14)and the NRC staff recommended course of action was approved by the Commission in a StaffRequirements Memo (SRM) (Reference 15). These documents established the basis for theNRC exercising its discretionary authority to specify an appropriate level of onsite insurance coverage for permanently shutdown nuclear power reactors.

5In SECY-97-186 (Reference 16), the NRC staff proposed rulemaking for Commission approvalthat was consistent with SECY-96-256, Option 2. In SECY-97-1 86, the NRC staff proposedchanges to 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) that would establish appropriate levels of onsite insurance coverage for plants that are permanently shutdown and defueled and that meet specified facilityconfigurations during permanent shutdown.

On October 30, 1997, the NRC published a proposed rulemaking to amend regulations governing liability coverage for permanently shutdown nuclear plants. The proposed rulemaking established four different configurations for permanently shutdown plants that encompassed anticipated spent fuel characteristics and storage modes during the period between permanent shutdown and termination of the license.

The rulemaking proposed financial protection requirements for each of the four specified plant configurations, including a configuration wherethe plant is permanently

shutdown, the reactor defueled, and the spent fuel stored in the spentfuel pool is not susceptible to a zircaloy cladding failure or gap release caused by an incipient fuel cladding failure if the pool is accidentally drained.However, the NRC staff rulemaking efforts were suspended prior to issuing the final rule when itwas realized that an NRC staff-approved technical basis did not exist fore-generic decay timesafter which the zirconium cladding failure concern could be eliminated.

The proposed changesto regulations governing onsite insurance coverage were subsequently included in a risk-informed, integrated rulemaking initiative for decommissioning nuclear power plants, which hasyet to be acted on. This rulemaking initiative, documented in SECY-00-145 (Reference 6),included onsite insurance coverage requirements based on the proposed decommissioning insurance rulemaking issued on October 30, 1997, as modified to address the public commentsreceived in response to that proposed rulemaking.

The modified rulemaking, as incorporated into SECY-00-145, would have allowed the minimum onsite insurance coverage to be reducedto $25 million once the spent fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool is no longer thermal-hydraulically capable of sustaining a zirconium fire, based on a plant-specific analysis.

As discussed in the staff response to a question in SECY-00-145 (see Attachment "NRC StaffResponses to NEI White Paper Comments on Improving Decommissioning Regulations,"

page 6, response to Question 3)"[T~he staff believes that full insurance coverage must be maintained for 5 years or until alicensee can show by analysis that its spent fuel pool is no longer vulnerable to such [azirconium]

fire."In addition, as discussed in the staff response to a question in SECY-00-145 (see Attachment "NRC Staff Responses to NEI White Paper Comments on Improving Decommissioning Regulations,"

page 5, response to Question 2):"Since the zirconium fire scenario would be possible for up to several years following

shutdown, and since the consequences of such a fire are severe in terms of propertydamage and land contamination, the staff position is that full onsite liability coverage mustbe retained for five years or until analysis has indicated that a zirconium fire is no longerpossible."

In a memorandum dated August 16, 2002 (Reference 17), the NRC Executive Director forOperations provided the NRC Commissioners a status of the regulatory exemptions for plants indecommissioning.

This memorandum stated that, 6"In the absence of any anticipated nuclear power plant decommissionings in the near term,the staff believes that there is no immediate need for moving forward with a majority of thedecommissioning regulatory improvement work that is currently planned.

Specifically, broadscope regulatory improvements for decommissioning nuclear power plants do not appear tobe of sufficient priority given a lack of future licensees that would benefit at this time. Due tohigher priorities, resources are being deferred for decommissioning rulemakings that are notcurrently in progress or not related to security

.... If any plants do unexpectedly shutdownpermanently, decommissioning regulatory issues would continue to be addressed throughthe exemption process in a manner similar to current practice."

Thus, the proposed rulemaking process changes for decommissioning plants discussed abovewere stopped in deference to the exemption process that had been used for previous licensees.

D. Precedents The SONGS exemption request from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is consistent with changes to financial protection approved by the NRC for other decommissioning plants including Zion Units 1 and 2(Reference

18) and more recently Kewaunee Power Station (Reference 19). In all cases theNRC approved a reduction in onsite insurance coverage.

IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission may, upon app~ication by any interested person orupon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of Part 50which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, andare consistent with the common defense and security.

10 CFR 50.12 also states that theCommission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present.As discussed below, this exemption request satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12.A. The Exemption Is Authorized By LawThe requested exemption is authorized by law and similar exemptions have been grantedby the Commission.

Other permanently shutdown plants that have been granted similarexemptions are discussed above. In addition, the requested exemption is consistent withthe guidelines presented by the NRC staff in SECY- 96-256. The proposed exemption isnot contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations.

Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.B. The Exemption Will Not Present An Undue Risk To Public Health And SafetyThe requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and the existing level of onsite insurance coverage for SONGS are predicated on the assumption that the reactor is operating.

However, SONGS is a permanently shutdown and defueled facility.

The permanently defueled status of the facility has resulted in a significant reduction in the number andseverity of potential accidents, and correspondingly, a significant reduction in the potential for and severity of onsite property damage. The proposed reduction in the amount ofonsite insurance coverage does not impact the probability or consequences of potential accidents.

The proposed level of insurance coverage is commensurate with the reducedrisk and reduced cost consequences of potential nuclear accidents at SONGS. Therefore, 7granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the health and safety ofthe public.C. The Exemption Is Consistent With The Common Defense And SecurityThe proposed exemption would not eliminate any requirements associated with physicalprotection of the site and would not adversely affect SCE's ability to physically secure thesite or protect special nuclear material.

Physical security measures at SONGS are notaffected by the requested exemption.

Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.

0. Special Circumstances Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2),

the NRC will not consider granting an exemption to itsregulations unless special circumstances are present.

SCE believes that specialcircumstances are present as discussed below.1. Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve theunderlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii))

The underlying purpose of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure funding of onsite post-accident recovery stabilization, anddecontamination costs following an accident at an-operating nuclear power plant. Therequirements of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) were developed taking into consideration the risksassociated with the operation of an operating nuclear power reactor, including thepotential consequences of a release of radioactive material from the reactor.

However,the regulation does not take into consideration the reduced potential for, andconsequences of, nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown facilities.

The radiological consequences of accidents that will remain possible at SONGS in thepermanently defueled condition are substantially lower than those at an operating plant.The proposed reduction in the level of onsite insurance coverage from $1.06 billion to$50 million would continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule by requiring alevel of financial protection commensurate with the significant reduction in the probability and consequences of nuclear incidents at SONGS. Consistent with the NRC'sconclusions documented in SECY-00-145 (Reference 6), the proposed reduction in thelevel of onsite insurance coverage would continue to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure funding for onsite post-accident

recovery, stabilization, anddecontamination costs in the unlikely event of an accident at SONGS.Therefore, application of the requirement in 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to maintain

$1.06 billionin onsite insurance coverage is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of thisrule and special circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).

2. Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly inexcess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that aresignificantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

(10 CFR50.1 2(a)(2)(iii))

8Continued compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would require that SCE maintain

$1.06billion in onsite insurance coverage.

The reduction in onsite insurance coverage from$1.06 billion to $50 million would continue to require a level of financial protection commensurate with the underlying purpose of the rule while eliminating an unnecessary financial burden.Continued application of the requirement to maintain

$1 .06 billion in onsite insurance coverage for SONGS would result in undue hardship and costs being incurred by the SCEdecommissioning trust fund for the purchase of unnecessary levels of onsite insurance coverage.

The NRC has granted similar exemptions to other decommissioning facilities.

Therefore, compliance with the rule would result in an undue hardship or other costs thatare significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or thatare significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

Therefore, thespecial circumstances are present as defined in 10 CER 50.12(a)(2)(iii).

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The proposed exemption meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in10 CFR 51.22(c)(25),

because the proposed exemption involves:

(i) no significant hazardsconsideration; (ii) no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of anyeffluent that may be released offsite; (iii) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (iv) no significant construction impact; (v) no significant increase in the potential for consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve:

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),

no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed exemption.

(i) No significant hazards consideration Pursuant to 10 CER 50.12, Special exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE)requests a permanent exemption from 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station (SONGS,).

SCE is proposing an exemption to 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) toreduce the minimum coverage limit of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) from $1.06 billion to $50 million.SCE has evaluated the'proposed exemption to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR50.92 as discussed below:1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed exemption has no effect on plant systems, structures and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function.

The proposed exemption would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of anyplant SSC. The proposed exemption would have no effect on the probability orconsequences of any of the previously evaluated accidents in the Defueled SafetyAnalysis Report (SONGS Unit 1), or the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (SONGSUnits 2 and 3).Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

92. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated?

The proposed exemption does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new ordifferent type of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications toexisting equipment associated with the proposed exemption.

Similarly, the proposedexemption would not physically change any structures,

systems, or components involved in the mitigation of any accidents.

Thus, no new initiators or precursors of anew or different kind of accident are created.

Furthermore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new accident as a result of new failure modesassociated with any equipment or personnel failures.

No changes are being made toparameters within which the plant is normally

operated, or in the setpoints which initiateprotective or mitigative

actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced.

Therefore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety?The proposed exemption does not alter the design basis or any safety limits for theplant. The proposed exemption does not impact station operation or any plant SSC thatis relied upon for accident mitigation.

Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a marginof safety.Based on the above, SCE concludes that the proposed exemption presents no significant hazards consideration, and, accordingly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified.

-(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts ofany effluent that may be released offsite.There are no expected changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of effluents discharged to the environment associated with the proposed exemption.

There are nomaterials or chemicals introduced into the plant that could affect the characteristics or typesof effluents released offsite.

In addition, the method of operation of waste processing systems will not be affected by the exemption.

The proposed exemption will not result inchanges to the design basis requirements of SSCs that function to limit or monitor therelease of effluents.

All the SSCs associated with limiting the release of effluents willcontinue to be able to perform their functions.

Therefore, the proposed exemption will resultin no significant change to the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

10(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The exemption would result in no expected increases in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure on either the workforce or the public. There are noexpected increases in normal occupational doses.(iv) There is no significant construction impact.There are no construction activities associated with the proposed exemption.

(v) There is no significant increase in the potential for consequences from radiological accidents.

See the no significant hazards considerations discussion in item 1 above.(vi) The requirements from which exemption is sought involve surety, insurance orindemnity requirements.

The requirements from which the exemption is sought involve financial protection and for theindemnification and limitation of liability of licensees pursuant to Section 170 of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended and 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1).

VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12, 'Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison,(SCE) is requesting an exemption from 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

The requested exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue riskto the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security.

Inaddition, special circumstances are present as set forth in 10 CER 50.12.

11REFERENCES

1. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 8,1993,

Subject:

Certification of Permanently Defueled Status, SONGS Unit 12. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 10,1993,

Subject:

Corrected Copy of Letter Certifying Permanently Defueled Status, SONGSUnit 13. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3," dated June 12, 2013.4. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3,"dated June 28, 2013.5. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2,"dated July 22, 2013.6. SECY-00-145, "Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,"

dated June 28, 20007. SECY-01-0100, "Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, jnsurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in SpendFuel Pools (WITS 200000126),"

dated June 4, 2001.8. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Emergency Planning Exemption

Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 andIndependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,"

dated March 31, 2014.9. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "UpdatedFinal Safety Analysis Report chapter 15, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2and 3," dated September 17, 2014.10. Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Southern California Edison, San OnofreNuclear generating

Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 and Independent Spent Fuel StorageInstallation

-exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning requirements and RelatedSafety Evaluation (TAC NOS. MF3835, MF3836, and MF3837),

dated June 4, 201511. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption RequestSan Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI," dated September 9, 2014.12. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Proposed Exemptions from Certain Portions of 10 CFR50.47 and Appendix E," October 6, 2014. Redacted Version dated December 15, 2014. 78)13. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Requests for Clarification of October 6, 2014 RAI Responses Concerning Emergency Planning Exemption Request San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, 3 andISFSI," dated October 27, 2014.

1214. SECY-96-256, "Changes to the Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 ," datedDecember 17, 1996.15. Staff Requirements Memo, "Re: SECY-96-256, Changes to Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors,"

dated January 28,1997.16. SECY-97-1 86, "Changes to the Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 ," dated August13, 1997.17. Memorandum from William D. Travers (NRC) to NRC Commissioners, Status of Regulatory Exemptions for Decommissioning Plants (WITS 200100085, WITS 199900133, WITS199900072),"

dated August 16, 2002.18. Federal Register Volume 64, Number 248, December 28, 1999, pages 72700-72701, "In theMatter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2):Exemption."

19 Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,"Kewaunee Power Station -Exemption from the Requirements of Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(w)(1)

Concerning Insurance For Post-Accident Site Decontamination (TAC NO. MF3915),"

date April 3, 2015 JSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SEDISONAn EDISON INTERNATIONAL CompanyThomas I. Palmisano Vice President Decommissioning

&Chief Nuclear OfficerOctober 22, 201510 CFR 50.1210 CFR 50.54(w)(1)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control DeskWashington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-206, 50-361, and 50-362Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w(1)

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3

References:

1. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, datedMarch 8, 1993,

Subject:

Certification of Permanently Defueled Status, SONGSUnit 12. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, datedMarch 10, 1993,

Subject:

Corrected Copy of Letter Certifying Permanently Defueled Status, SONGS Unit 13. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,) dated June 12, 2013;

Subject:

Certification ofPermanent Cessation of Power Operations, San Onofre NuclearGenerating

Station, Units 2 and 3*4. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,) dated June 28, 2013;

Subject:

Permanent Removal ofFuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 35. Letter from P. T. Dietrich (SCE) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated July 22, 2013;

Subject:

Permanent Removal of Fuelfrom the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12,"Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE) requests apermanent exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS) Units 1, 2 and 3. 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires individual power reactor licensees toobtain insurance coverage from private sources to provide protection covering the licensee's obligation, in the unlikely event of an accident, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor andthe reactor site. Specifically, licensees must obtain insurance having a minimum coverage limitfor each reactor station site of either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less. This insurance coverage is referred to as"onsite insurance coverage."

P.O. Box 128San Clemente, CA.92674(949) 368-6575Fax: (949) 368-6183tomn.palmisano@sce.

comnfl Document Control Desk --Oobr2,21-2-Ocotber 22, 2015SCE is requesting an exemption to 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for SONGS that would reduce theminimum coverage limit of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to $50 million for SONGS.The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure adequate funding of onsite post-accident

recovery, stabilization anddecontamination costs following an accident at an operating nuclear power plant. However, theregulation does not take into consideration the reduced potential for, and consequences of,such nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown facilities.

The SONGS facility is permanently shut down and defueled (References 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). The proposed exemption would allow areduction in the level of onsite insurance protection for SONGS to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled status of the facility and the underlying purpose of the rule.The proposed exemption request reflects the reduced risk associated with SONGS in thepermanently defueled condition.

It would allow a commensurate reduction in onsite insurance coverage.

Operations of SONGS in accordance with this exemption request will continue toprovide adequate financial protection for the appropriate stakeholders.

The exemption request is provided in Attachment 1 to this letter. SCE respectfully requests thatthis exemption be granted as soon as reasonably possible to relieve the financial burden ofmaintaining unnecessarily higher levels of onsite insurance coverage.

There are no new regulatory commitments made within this submittal.

If there are any questions, please call Mr. Jim Kay, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory

Affairs, at(949) 368-7418.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on 2015.I,Sincerely, Attachment 1, Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.55(w)(1)

CC: M. Dapas, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IVM. Vaaler, NRC Project Manager, SONGS Units 1, 2 and 3T. Wengert, NRC Project ManagerR. L. Kellar, Region IV, Branch Chief, Repository and Spent Fuel Safety Attachment 1Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1

)San Onofre Nuclear Generating StationUnits 1, 2 and 3 1San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1)

I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED EXEMPTION Pursuant to 10 CER 50.12, "Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE) requests apermanent exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS).

10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires individual power reactor licensees to obtain insurance coverage from private sources to provide protection covering the licensees obligation, in theunlikely event of an accident, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and the reactor site.Specifically, licensees must obtain insurance having a minimum coverage limit for each reactorstation site of either $1 .06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available fromprivate sources, whichever is less. This insurance coverage is referred to as "onsite coverage" or "onsite insurance coverage."

SCE is requesting an exemption to 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to reduce the minimum coverage limit of10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to $50 million for SONGS.10 CER 50.54(w)(1) reads as follows:"(w) Each power reactor/licensee under this part for a production or utilization facility of thetype described in §§ 50.2 1(b) or 50.22 shall take reasonable steps to obtain insurance available at reasonable costs and on reasonable terms from private sources or todemonstrate to the satisfaction of the NRC that it possesses an equivalent amount ofprotection covering the licensee's obligation, in the event of an accident at the licensee's

reactor, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and the reactor station site at which thereactor experiencing the accident is/located, provided that:(1) The insurance required by paragraph (w) of this section must have a minimumcoverage limit for each reactor station site of either $1.06 billion or whatever amount ofinsurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The requiredinsurance must clearly state that, as and to the extent provided in paragraph (w)(4) ofthis section, any proceeds must be payable first for stabilization of the reactor and nextfor decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site. If a licensee's coveragefalls below the required

minimum, the licensee shall within 60 days take all reasonable steps to restore its coverage to the required minimum.

The required insurance may, atthe option of the licensee, be included within policies that also provide coverage for otherrisks, including, but not limited to, the risk of direct physical damage."II. BACKGROUND SONGS Unit 1 commercially generated power from January 1, 1968 until November 30, 1992.SONGS Unit 1 was permanently defueled on March 6, 1993 (References 1 and 2) and wasmaintained in SAFSTOR until June 1999, when decommissioning was initiated.

Spent fuel hasbeen removed from SONGS Unit 1 and is stored in the SONGS Independent Spent FuelStorage Installation at SONGS and in the GE-Hitachi Morris facility in Illinois.

All SONGS Unit 1above ground structures have been removed.SONGS Units 2 and 3 commercially generated power until they permanently ceased operation and were defueled.

By letter dated June 12, 2013 (Reference 3), Southern California Edison 2(SCE) submitted a certification to the NRC indicating its intention to permanently cease poweroperations at SONGS Units 2 and 3, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i).

On June 28, 2013,SCE submitted a certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel for SONGSUnit 3 (Reference

4) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).

On July 22, 2013, SCE submitted acertification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel for SONGS Unit 2 (Reference

5) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).

Upon docketing of these certifications, the 10 CFR Part50 licenses for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorize operation of the reactor oremplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2).

SONGS Units 2 and 3 have been shut down since January 2012. At the time of this submittal, itwill have been over three years since the most recent irradiation of spent fuel currently stored inthe Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools. It is expected that SONGS Units 2 and 3 will remain in a wetfuel storage configuration for approximately three to five years. SONGS poses significantly lower risk to the public health and safety in this defueled condition.

Ill. DISCUSSION The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure adequate funding of onsite post-accident

recovery,

'stabilization anddecontamination costs following an accident at an operating nuclear power plant. Therequirements of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) were developed taking into consideration the risksassociated with an operating nuclear power reactor, including the potential consequences of arelease of radioactive material from the reactor.

However, the regulation does not take intoconsideration the reduced potential for and consequences'bf nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown and defueled facilities like SONGS. The proposed exemption would allow a reduction in the level of onsite insurance coverage to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled status of SONGS and the underlying purpose of the rule.Although the likelihood of an accident at an operating reactor is small, the consequences can belarge, in part due to the high temperatures and pressures of the reactor coolant system as wellas the inventory of radionuclides.

For a, permanently shutdown and defueled

reactor, nuclearaccidents involving the reactor and its associated

systems, structures and components are nolonger possible.

Furthermore, the. probability and consequences of non-operating reactornuclear incidents are substantially reduced because:

1) the decay heat from the spent fueldecreases over time, which reduces the amount of cooling required to prevent the spent fuelfrom heating up to a temperature that could compromise the ability of the fuel cladding to retainfission products; and 2) the decay of the relatively short-lived radionuclides contained in thespent fuel reduces the inventory of radioactive materials available for release, particularly withrespect to the inventory of volatile components like iodine and noble gasses.Although the potential for, and consequences of, nuclear accidents decline substantially after aplant permanently defuels its reactor, they are not completely eliminated.

There are potential radiological consequences that could be associated with the onsite storage of the spent fuel inthe spent fuel pool (SFP). In addition, a site with a permanently shutdown and defueled reactormay contain an inventory of radioactive

liquids, activated reactor components, andcontaminated materials.

For purposes of modifying the amount of onsite insurance coveragemaintained by a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor licensee, the potential radiological consequences of these non-operating reactor nuclear incidents are appropriate to consider, despite their very low probability of occurrence.

As discussed below, the scope and severity ofonsite and offsite consequences, if any, are substantially reduced given that all SONGS unitshave been defueled and permanently retired.

3This request is consistent with Staff rulemaking and policy proposals contained in Staff lettersSECY-00-01 45,111Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning" (Reference

6) and SECY-01-0100, "Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, andEmergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuelin Spent Fuel Pools." (Reference 7).The proposed exemption would allow a reduction in the level of financial protection againstonsite liability at SONGS to a level that is commensurate with the permanently defueled statusof the facility and the underlying purpose of the rule. This requested change would maintain aconservative level of financial protection considered commensurate with the significant reduction in the probability and consequences of potential nuclear incidents at SONGS Units 1,2 and 3. Consistent with the NRC's conclusions documented in SECY-00-0145, this reducedfinancial protection insurance coverage would continue to conservatively ensure adequatefunding of onsite post accident

recovery, stabilization and decontamination following an accidentat an operating nuclear power plant.A. Reduced Scope and Severity of Radiological Accidents at SONGSSONGS Unit 1 ceased operations on November 30, 1992. SONGS Unit 1 was permanently defueled and was maintained in SAFSTOR until June 1999, when decommissioning wasinitiated.

All spent fuel has been removed from SONGS Unit 1 and is stored in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISESI) at SONGS and in the GE-Hitachi Morris facility in Illinois.

All SONGS Unit 1 above ground structures have been removed.SONGS Units 2 and 3 permanently ceased operation in June, 2013. All nuclear fuel has beenremoved from their reactor vessels.

The irradiated'fuel will be stored in the spent fuel pool(SEP) and in the ISFSI until it is shipped offsite.

In this condition, the number of credibleaccidents/transients is significantly smaller than for a plant authorized to operate the reactor oremplace or retain fuel in the reactor vessel.As indicated in SCE's request for Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference 8), the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report has beenupdated to revise the Chapter 1 5Safety Analysis section for conformance with the defueledstatus of the reactors.

Reference 9 submitted a revision of Chapter 15 to the NRC to aid in thevarious ongoing reviews.

These updates demonstrate that the offsite consequences of theremaining design basis accidents would be considerably less than during reactor operations.

The NRC has reviewed and confirmed these results as part of the approval of the Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference 10).B. Plant-Specific Analyses of Beyond Design Basis EventsSONGS Units 2 and 3 Loss of Cooling Water Inventory with No Air CoolingSCE's request for Exemption from Emergency Planning requirements (Reference

8) assupplemented by Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption Request (Reference 11, 12, and 13) also summarize the results ofevaluations of a beyond design basis scenario involving a completely drained spent fuel pooland blocked air flow passages.

With no water cooling or convective air cooling (adiabatic analysis case), the maximum zirconium temperature is expected to remain below 900°C, thetemperature at which uncontrolled oxidation could occur, for sufficient time for SCE to take 4mitigative actions.

Based on the summarized analysis the time for the cladding on the hottestfuel assembly to heat up to 90000 would be over 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. The time to heat up to the lowesttemperature where clad swelling and incipient cladding failure might occur (565°0) would beover 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.The evaluated and demonstrated time to deploy mitigation strategy equipment using minimumPost Defueled Emergency Planning staffing levels is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.Direct and scattered radiological dose rates were calculated for this fully drained configuration ofthe spent fuel pool. At the site Exclusion Area Boundary the dose rates were shown to be asmall fraction of the established threshold for emergency protective actions for the public (EPAProtective Action Guidelines).

SONGS Units 2 and 3 Loss of Cooling Water Inventory with Air CoolingAn evaluation has also been done for a beyond design basis scenario involving a completely drained spent fuel pool without blocked air passages.

The calculations determined that underthe bounding conservative modeling scenario August 31, 2014 is the date by which spent fuelhas decayed such that its internal heat generation rate is low enough to preclude the zirconium cladding from reaching 565°0, well below the 90000 threshold for uncontrolled zirconium oxidation.

Fuel Handling Building temperatures were modeled based on normal ventilation supply andexhaust system subsystem operation as described in UFSAR Section 9.4.3.1 using theGOTHIC computer program.

Local variations in solar heat loads were calculated using theUHSSIM computer program.

The maximum steady-state temperature of the zirconium claddingwas calculated using the COBRA program with a conservative set of heat transfer assumptions for natural air circulation in the spent fuel racks.The analysis used a realistic estimate for the total spent fuel heat generation rate calculated using the methodology described in NUREG-0800, Rev.2, Branch Technical Position (BTP)ASB 9-2, "Residual Decay Energy for Light-Water Reactors for Long-Term Cooling" andbench marked against measurements performed in 2011. All other inputs are based on thecurrent plant configuration; no planned design changes were considered.

The boundingassembly heat generation rate is taken from the ORIGEN model.The analysis shows that the surface temperature of the cladding in the spent fuel pools will notexceed 56500 following a hypothetical total loss of water from the spent fuel pool on or afterAugust 31, 2014. A~iequate cooling is maintained due to heat rejection to the surrounding fuelassemblies and from the spent fuel pool to the outside, primarily via the fuel handling buildingventilation system.C. NRC Proposed Rulemaking The NRC staff has generically evaluated the legal, technical, and policy issues regarding thefinancial protection requirements for large nuclear power plants that have been permanently shut down. The results of these evaluations were summarized in SECY-96-256 (Reference 14)and the NRC staff recommended course of action was approved by the Commission in a StaffRequirements Memo (SRM) (Reference 15). These documents established the basis for theNRC exercising its discretionary authority to specify an appropriate level of onsite insurance coverage for permanently shutdown nuclear power reactors.

5In SECY-97-186 (Reference 16), the NRC staff proposed rulemaking for Commission approvalthat was consistent with SECY-96-256, Option 2. In SECY-97-1 86, the NRC staff proposedchanges to 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) that would establish appropriate levels of onsite insurance coverage for plants that are permanently shutdown and defueled and that meet specified facilityconfigurations during permanent shutdown.

On October 30, 1997, the NRC published a proposed rulemaking to amend regulations governing liability coverage for permanently shutdown nuclear plants. The proposed rulemaking established four different configurations for permanently shutdown plants that encompassed anticipated spent fuel characteristics and storage modes during the period between permanent shutdown and termination of the license.

The rulemaking proposed financial protection requirements for each of the four specified plant configurations, including a configuration wherethe plant is permanently

shutdown, the reactor defueled, and the spent fuel stored in the spentfuel pool is not susceptible to a zircaloy cladding failure or gap release caused by an incipient fuel cladding failure if the pool is accidentally drained.However, the NRC staff rulemaking efforts were suspended prior to issuing the final rule when itwas realized that an NRC staff-approved technical basis did not exist fore-generic decay timesafter which the zirconium cladding failure concern could be eliminated.

The proposed changesto regulations governing onsite insurance coverage were subsequently included in a risk-informed, integrated rulemaking initiative for decommissioning nuclear power plants, which hasyet to be acted on. This rulemaking initiative, documented in SECY-00-145 (Reference 6),included onsite insurance coverage requirements based on the proposed decommissioning insurance rulemaking issued on October 30, 1997, as modified to address the public commentsreceived in response to that proposed rulemaking.

The modified rulemaking, as incorporated into SECY-00-145, would have allowed the minimum onsite insurance coverage to be reducedto $25 million once the spent fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool is no longer thermal-hydraulically capable of sustaining a zirconium fire, based on a plant-specific analysis.

As discussed in the staff response to a question in SECY-00-145 (see Attachment "NRC StaffResponses to NEI White Paper Comments on Improving Decommissioning Regulations,"

page 6, response to Question 3)"[T~he staff believes that full insurance coverage must be maintained for 5 years or until alicensee can show by analysis that its spent fuel pool is no longer vulnerable to such [azirconium]

fire."In addition, as discussed in the staff response to a question in SECY-00-145 (see Attachment "NRC Staff Responses to NEI White Paper Comments on Improving Decommissioning Regulations,"

page 5, response to Question 2):"Since the zirconium fire scenario would be possible for up to several years following

shutdown, and since the consequences of such a fire are severe in terms of propertydamage and land contamination, the staff position is that full onsite liability coverage mustbe retained for five years or until analysis has indicated that a zirconium fire is no longerpossible."

In a memorandum dated August 16, 2002 (Reference 17), the NRC Executive Director forOperations provided the NRC Commissioners a status of the regulatory exemptions for plants indecommissioning.

This memorandum stated that, 6"In the absence of any anticipated nuclear power plant decommissionings in the near term,the staff believes that there is no immediate need for moving forward with a majority of thedecommissioning regulatory improvement work that is currently planned.

Specifically, broadscope regulatory improvements for decommissioning nuclear power plants do not appear tobe of sufficient priority given a lack of future licensees that would benefit at this time. Due tohigher priorities, resources are being deferred for decommissioning rulemakings that are notcurrently in progress or not related to security

.... If any plants do unexpectedly shutdownpermanently, decommissioning regulatory issues would continue to be addressed throughthe exemption process in a manner similar to current practice."

Thus, the proposed rulemaking process changes for decommissioning plants discussed abovewere stopped in deference to the exemption process that had been used for previous licensees.

D. Precedents The SONGS exemption request from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is consistent with changes to financial protection approved by the NRC for other decommissioning plants including Zion Units 1 and 2(Reference

18) and more recently Kewaunee Power Station (Reference 19). In all cases theNRC approved a reduction in onsite insurance coverage.

IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission may, upon app~ication by any interested person orupon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of Part 50which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, andare consistent with the common defense and security.

10 CFR 50.12 also states that theCommission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present.As discussed below, this exemption request satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12.A. The Exemption Is Authorized By LawThe requested exemption is authorized by law and similar exemptions have been grantedby the Commission.

Other permanently shutdown plants that have been granted similarexemptions are discussed above. In addition, the requested exemption is consistent withthe guidelines presented by the NRC staff in SECY- 96-256. The proposed exemption isnot contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations.

Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.B. The Exemption Will Not Present An Undue Risk To Public Health And SafetyThe requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and the existing level of onsite insurance coverage for SONGS are predicated on the assumption that the reactor is operating.

However, SONGS is a permanently shutdown and defueled facility.

The permanently defueled status of the facility has resulted in a significant reduction in the number andseverity of potential accidents, and correspondingly, a significant reduction in the potential for and severity of onsite property damage. The proposed reduction in the amount ofonsite insurance coverage does not impact the probability or consequences of potential accidents.

The proposed level of insurance coverage is commensurate with the reducedrisk and reduced cost consequences of potential nuclear accidents at SONGS. Therefore, 7granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the health and safety ofthe public.C. The Exemption Is Consistent With The Common Defense And SecurityThe proposed exemption would not eliminate any requirements associated with physicalprotection of the site and would not adversely affect SCE's ability to physically secure thesite or protect special nuclear material.

Physical security measures at SONGS are notaffected by the requested exemption.

Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.

0. Special Circumstances Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2),

the NRC will not consider granting an exemption to itsregulations unless special circumstances are present.

SCE believes that specialcircumstances are present as discussed below.1. Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve theunderlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii))

The underlying purpose of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) is to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure funding of onsite post-accident recovery stabilization, anddecontamination costs following an accident at an-operating nuclear power plant. Therequirements of 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) were developed taking into consideration the risksassociated with the operation of an operating nuclear power reactor, including thepotential consequences of a release of radioactive material from the reactor.

However,the regulation does not take into consideration the reduced potential for, andconsequences of, nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown facilities.

The radiological consequences of accidents that will remain possible at SONGS in thepermanently defueled condition are substantially lower than those at an operating plant.The proposed reduction in the level of onsite insurance coverage from $1.06 billion to$50 million would continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule by requiring alevel of financial protection commensurate with the significant reduction in the probability and consequences of nuclear incidents at SONGS. Consistent with the NRC'sconclusions documented in SECY-00-145 (Reference 6), the proposed reduction in thelevel of onsite insurance coverage would continue to require sufficient property damageinsurance to ensure funding for onsite post-accident

recovery, stabilization, anddecontamination costs in the unlikely event of an accident at SONGS.Therefore, application of the requirement in 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) to maintain

$1.06 billionin onsite insurance coverage is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of thisrule and special circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).

2. Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly inexcess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that aresignificantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

(10 CFR50.1 2(a)(2)(iii))

8Continued compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would require that SCE maintain

$1.06billion in onsite insurance coverage.

The reduction in onsite insurance coverage from$1.06 billion to $50 million would continue to require a level of financial protection commensurate with the underlying purpose of the rule while eliminating an unnecessary financial burden.Continued application of the requirement to maintain

$1 .06 billion in onsite insurance coverage for SONGS would result in undue hardship and costs being incurred by the SCEdecommissioning trust fund for the purchase of unnecessary levels of onsite insurance coverage.

The NRC has granted similar exemptions to other decommissioning facilities.

Therefore, compliance with the rule would result in an undue hardship or other costs thatare significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or thatare significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

Therefore, thespecial circumstances are present as defined in 10 CER 50.12(a)(2)(iii).

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The proposed exemption meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in10 CFR 51.22(c)(25),

because the proposed exemption involves:

(i) no significant hazardsconsideration; (ii) no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of anyeffluent that may be released offsite; (iii) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (iv) no significant construction impact; (v) no significant increase in the potential for consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve:

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),

no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed exemption.

(i) No significant hazards consideration Pursuant to 10 CER 50.12, Special exemptions,"

Southern California Edison (SCE)requests a permanent exemption from 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station (SONGS,).

SCE is proposing an exemption to 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) toreduce the minimum coverage limit of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) from $1.06 billion to $50 million.SCE has evaluated the'proposed exemption to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR50.92 as discussed below:1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed exemption has no effect on plant systems, structures and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function.

The proposed exemption would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of anyplant SSC. The proposed exemption would have no effect on the probability orconsequences of any of the previously evaluated accidents in the Defueled SafetyAnalysis Report (SONGS Unit 1), or the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (SONGSUnits 2 and 3).Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

92. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated?

The proposed exemption does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new ordifferent type of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications toexisting equipment associated with the proposed exemption.

Similarly, the proposedexemption would not physically change any structures,

systems, or components involved in the mitigation of any accidents.

Thus, no new initiators or precursors of anew or different kind of accident are created.

Furthermore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new accident as a result of new failure modesassociated with any equipment or personnel failures.

No changes are being made toparameters within which the plant is normally

operated, or in the setpoints which initiateprotective or mitigative

actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced.

Therefore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety?The proposed exemption does not alter the design basis or any safety limits for theplant. The proposed exemption does not impact station operation or any plant SSC thatis relied upon for accident mitigation.

Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a marginof safety.Based on the above, SCE concludes that the proposed exemption presents no significant hazards consideration, and, accordingly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified.

-(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts ofany effluent that may be released offsite.There are no expected changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of effluents discharged to the environment associated with the proposed exemption.

There are nomaterials or chemicals introduced into the plant that could affect the characteristics or typesof effluents released offsite.

In addition, the method of operation of waste processing systems will not be affected by the exemption.

The proposed exemption will not result inchanges to the design basis requirements of SSCs that function to limit or monitor therelease of effluents.

All the SSCs associated with limiting the release of effluents willcontinue to be able to perform their functions.

Therefore, the proposed exemption will resultin no significant change to the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

10(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The exemption would result in no expected increases in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure on either the workforce or the public. There are noexpected increases in normal occupational doses.(iv) There is no significant construction impact.There are no construction activities associated with the proposed exemption.

(v) There is no significant increase in the potential for consequences from radiological accidents.

See the no significant hazards considerations discussion in item 1 above.(vi) The requirements from which exemption is sought involve surety, insurance orindemnity requirements.

The requirements from which the exemption is sought involve financial protection and for theindemnification and limitation of liability of licensees pursuant to Section 170 of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended and 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1).

VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12, 'Specific exemptions,"

Southern California Edison,(SCE) is requesting an exemption from 10 CER 50.54(w)(1) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

The requested exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue riskto the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security.

Inaddition, special circumstances are present as set forth in 10 CER 50.12.

11REFERENCES

1. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 8,1993,

Subject:

Certification of Permanently Defueled Status, SONGS Unit 12. Letter from W. C. Marsh, SCE, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 10,1993,

Subject:

Corrected Copy of Letter Certifying Permanently Defueled Status, SONGSUnit 13. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3," dated June 12, 2013.4. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3,"dated June 28, 2013.5. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2,"dated July 22, 2013.6. SECY-00-145, "Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,"

dated June 28, 20007. SECY-01-0100, "Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, jnsurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in SpendFuel Pools (WITS 200000126),"

dated June 4, 2001.8. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Emergency Planning Exemption

Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 andIndependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,"

dated March 31, 2014.9. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "UpdatedFinal Safety Analysis Report chapter 15, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2and 3," dated September 17, 2014.10. Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Southern California Edison, San OnofreNuclear generating

Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 and Independent Spent Fuel StorageInstallation

-exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning requirements and RelatedSafety Evaluation (TAC NOS. MF3835, MF3836, and MF3837),

dated June 4, 201511. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Emergency Planning Exemption RequestSan Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI," dated September 9, 2014.12. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Proposed Exemptions from Certain Portions of 10 CFR50.47 and Appendix E," October 6, 2014. Redacted Version dated December 15, 2014. 78)13. Letter from Southern California Edison to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Requests for Clarification of October 6, 2014 RAI Responses Concerning Emergency Planning Exemption Request San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, 3 andISFSI," dated October 27, 2014.

1214. SECY-96-256, "Changes to the Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 ," datedDecember 17, 1996.15. Staff Requirements Memo, "Re: SECY-96-256, Changes to Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors,"

dated January 28,1997.16. SECY-97-1 86, "Changes to the Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 ," dated August13, 1997.17. Memorandum from William D. Travers (NRC) to NRC Commissioners, Status of Regulatory Exemptions for Decommissioning Plants (WITS 200100085, WITS 199900133, WITS199900072),"

dated August 16, 2002.18. Federal Register Volume 64, Number 248, December 28, 1999, pages 72700-72701, "In theMatter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2):Exemption."

19 Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,"Kewaunee Power Station -Exemption from the Requirements of Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(w)(1)

Concerning Insurance For Post-Accident Site Decontamination (TAC NO. MF3915),"

date April 3, 2015