80 FR 19697 - Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 70 (April 13, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 70 (April 13, 2015)
| Page Range | 19697-19701 | |
| FR Document | 2015-08395 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 19697-19701] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-08395] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-305; NRC-2015-0089] Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Exemption; issuance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption from the requirement to maintain a specified level of onsite property damage insurance in response to a request from Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK or the licensee) dated March 20, 2014. This exemption would permit the licensee to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million. DATES: April 13, 2015. [[Page 19698]] ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0089 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0089. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Huffman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2046; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) facility is a decommissioning power reactor located on approximately 900 acres in Carlton (Kewaunee County), Wisconsin, which is 27 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisconsin. The licensee, DEK, is the holder of KPS Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-43. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. By letter dated February 25, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13058A065), DEK submitted a certification to the NRC indicating it would permanently cease power operations at KPS on May 7, 2013. On May 7, 2013, DEK permanently shut down the KPS reactor. On May 14, 2013, DEK certified that it had permanently defueled the KPS reactor vessel (ADAMS Accession No. ML13135A209). As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and under Section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), DEK is no longer authorized to operate the KPS reactor or emplace nuclear fuel into the reactor vessel. The licensee is still authorized to possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently being stored onsite in a spent fuel pool (SFP) and in independent spent fuel storage installation dry casks. II. Request/Action Under 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,'' DEK has requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) by a letter dated March 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14090A111). The exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would permit DEK to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million. The regulation in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires each licensee to have and maintain onsite property damage insurance to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and reactor site in the event of an accident. The onsite insurance coverage must be either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources (whichever is less). The licensee states that the risk of an accident at a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor is much less than the risk from an operating power reactor. In addition, since reactor operation is no longer authorized at KPS, there are no events that would require the stabilization of reactor conditions after an accident. Similarly, the risk of an accident that that would result in significant onsite contamination at KPS is also much lower than the risk of such an event at operating reactors. Therefore, DEK is requesting an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million, commensurate with the reduced risk of an accident at the permanently shutdown and defueled KPS site. III. Discussion Under 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. The financial protection limits of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established after the Three Mile Island accident out of concern that licensees may be unable to financially cover onsite cleanup costs in the event of a major nuclear accident. The specified $1.06 billion coverage amount requirement was developed based on an analysis of an accident at a nuclear reactor operating at power, resulting in a large fission product release and requiring significant resource expenditures to stabilize the reactor conditions and ultimately decontaminate and cleanup the site (similar to the stabilization and cleanup activities at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility following the damage from a severe earthquake and tsunami). These cost estimates were developed based on the spectrum of postulated accidents for an operating nuclear reactor. Those costs were derived from the consequences of a release of radioactive material from the reactor. Although the risk of an accident at an operating reactor is very low, the consequences can be large. In an operating plant, the high temperature and pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS), as well as the inventory of relatively short-lived radionuclides, contribute to both the risk and consequences of an accident. With the permanent cessation of reactor operations at KPS and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor core, such accidents are no longer possible. As a result, the reactor, RCS, and supporting systems no longer operate and, therefore, have no function related to the storage of the irradiated fuel. Hence, postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactor, RCS, or supporting systems are no longer applicable. During reactor decommissioning, the principal radiological risks are associated with the storage of spent fuel onsite. In its March 20, 2014, exemption request, DEK discusses both design-basis and beyond- design-basis events involving irradiated fuel stored in the SFP. The licensee states that there are no possible design-basis events at KPS that could result in a radiological release exceeding the limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) early-phase Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) of 1 roentgen equivalent man at the exclusion area boundary. The only accident that might lead to a significant radiological release at a decommissioning reactor is a [[Page 19699]] zirconium fire. The zirconium fire scenario is a postulated, but highly unlikely, beyond-design-basis accident scenario that involves loss of all water inventory from the SFP, resulting in a significant heat-up of the spent fuel, and culminating in substantial zirconium cladding oxidation and fuel damage. The probability of a zirconium fire scenario is related to the decay heat of the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP. Therefore, the risks from a zirconium fire scenario continue to decrease as a function of the time that KPS has been permanently shut down. The licensee provided a detailed analysis of hypothetical beyond- design-basis accidents that could result in a radiological release at KPS in its January 16, 2014, submittal to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14029A076). One of these beyond-design-basis accidents involves a complete loss of SFP water inventory, where cooling of the spent fuel would be primarily accomplished by natural circulation of air through the uncovered spent fuel assemblies. The licensee's analysis of this accident shows that by October 30, 2014, air-cooling of the spent fuel assemblies will be sufficient to keep the fuel within a safe temperature range indefinitely without fuel damage or radiological release. This is important, because the NRC staff has previously authorized a lesser amount of onsite property damage insurance coverage based on analysis of the zirconium fire risk. In SECY-96-256, ``Changes to Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and 10 CFR 140.11,'' dated December 17, 1996 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A483), the staff recommended changes to the power reactor insurance regulations that would allow licensees to lower onsite insurance levels to $50 million upon demonstration that the fuel stored in the SFP can be air-cooled. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-96-256, dated January 28, 1997 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A454), the Commission supported the staff's recommendation that, among other things, would allow permanently shutdown power reactor licensees to reduce commercial onsite property damage insurance coverage to $50 million when the licensee was able to demonstrate the technical criterion that the spent fuel could be air- cooled if the spent fuel pool was drained of water. The staff has used this technical criterion to grant similar exemptions to other decommissioning reactors (e.g., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1999 (64 FR 2920); and Zion Nuclear Power Station, published in the Federal Register on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72700)). These prior exemptions were based on these licensees demonstrating that the SFP could be air-cooled, consistent with the technical criterion discussed above. In SECY-00-0145, ``Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,'' dated June 28, 2000, and SECY-01-0100, ``Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pools,'' dated June 4, 2001 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML003721626 and ML011450420, respectively), the NRC staff discussed additional information concerning SFP zirconium fire risks at decommissioning reactors and associated implications for onsite property damage insurance. Providing an analysis of when the spent fuel stored in the SFP is capable of air-cooling is one measure that can be used to demonstrate that the probability of a zirconium fire is exceedingly low. However, the staff has more recently used an additional analysis that bounds an incomplete drain down of the SFP water, or some other catastrophic event (such as a complete drainage of the SFP with rearrangement of spent fuel rack geometry and/or the addition of rubble to the SFP). The analysis postulates that decay heat transfer from the spent fuel via conduction, convection, or radiation would be impeded. This analysis is often referred to as an adiabatic heatup. The licensee's analyses, as referenced in its March 20, 2014, exemption request, demonstrates that under conditions where the SFP water inventory has drained and only air-cooling of the stored irradiated fuel is available, there is reasonable assurance that after October 2014, the KPS spent fuel will remain at temperatures far below those associated with a significant radiological release. In addition, the licensee has also provided an adiabatic heatup analysis, demonstrating that as of October 21, 2014, there will be at least 10 hours after the loss of all means of cooling (both air and/or water), before the spent fuel cladding would reach a temperature where the potential for a significant offsite radiological release could occur. The licensee states that should all means to cool the spent fuel be lost, 10 hours is sufficient time for personnel to respond with additional resources, equipment, and capability to restore cooling to the SFP, even after a non-credible, catastrophic event. As provided in DEK's letters dated August 23, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13242A019), and January 10, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14016A078), DEK furnished information concerning its makeup strategies, in the event of a loss of SFP coolant inventory. The multiple strategies for providing makeup to the SFP include: using existing plant systems for inventory makeup; supplying water through hoses to a spool piece connection to the existing SFP piping; or using a diesel-driven portable pump to take suction from Lake Michigan and provide makeup or spray to the SFP. These strategies will be maintained by a license condition. DEK states that the equipment needed to perform these actions are located onsite, and that the external makeup strategy (using a diesel driven portable pump) is capable of being deployed within 2 hours. DEK stated that, considering the very low-probability of beyond-design-basis accidents affecting the SFP, these diverse strategies provide defense-in-depth and time to mitigate and prevent a zirconium fire using makeup or spray to the SFP before the onset of zirconium cladding rapid oxidation. In the safety evaluation of the licensee's request for exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements dated October 27, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14261A223), the NRC staff assessed the DEK accident analyses associated with the radiological risks from a zirconium fire at the permanently shutdown and defueled KPS site. The staff has confirmed that under conditions where cooling airflow can develop, suitably conservative calculations indicate that by the end of October 2014, the fuel will remain at temperatures where the cladding will be undamaged for an unlimited period. For the very unlikely beyond-design-basis accident scenario, where the SFP coolant inventory is lost in such a manner that all methods of heat removal from the spent fuel are no longer available, there will be a minimum of 10 hours from the initiation of the accident until the cladding reaches a temperature where offsite radiological release might occur. The staff finds that 10 hours is sufficient time to support deployment of mitigation equipment to prevent the zirconium cladding from reaching a point of rapid oxidation. The staff's basis as to why it considers $50 million to be an adequate level of onsite property damage insurance for a decommissioning reactor, once the spent fuel in the SFP is no longer susceptible to a zirconium fire, is provided in SECY-96-256. The staff has postulated that there is still a potential [[Page 19700]] for other radiological incidents at a decommissioning reactor that could result in significant onsite contamination besides a zirconium fire. In SECY-96-256, the NRC staff cited the rupture of a large contaminated liquid storage tank, causing soil contamination and potential groundwater contamination, as the most costly postulated event to decontaminate and remediate (other than a SFP zirconium fire). The postulated large liquid radwaste storage tank rupture event was determined to have a bounding onsite cleanup cost of approximately $50 million. The NRC staff has determined that the licensee's proposed reduction in onsite property damage insurance coverage to a level of $50 million is consistent with SECY-96-256. In addition, the staff notes that there is a precedent of granting a similar exemption to other permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors. As previously stated, the staff concluded that as of October 30, 2014, sufficient irradiated fuel decay time has elapsed at KPS to decrease the probability of an onsite radiological release from a postulated zirconium fire accident to negligible levels. In addition, the licensee's proposal to reduce onsite insurance to a level of $50 million is consistent with the maximum estimated cleanup costs for the recovery from the rupture of a large liquid radwaste storage tank. A. Authorized by Law Under 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may grant exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR part 50, as the Commission determines are authorized by law. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or other laws, as amended. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law. B. No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety The onsite property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established to provide financial assurance that following a significant nuclear incident, onsite conditions could be stabilized and the site decontaminated. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and the existing level of onsite insurance coverage for KPS are predicated on the assumption that the reactor is operating. However, KPS is a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The permanently defueled status of the facility has resulted in a significant reduction in the number and severity of potential accidents, and correspondingly, a significant reduction in the potential for and severity of onsite property damage. The proposed reduction in the amount of onsite insurance coverage does not impact the probability or consequences of potential accidents. The proposed level of insurance coverage is commensurate with the reduced risk and reduced cost consequences of potential nuclear accidents at KPS. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public. C. Consistent With the Common Defense and Security The proposed exemption would not eliminate any requirements associated with physical protection of the site and would not adversely affect DEK's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Physical security measures at KPS are not affected by the requested exemption. Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security. D. Special Circumstances Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present if the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to stabilize conditions and cover onsite cleanup costs associated with site decontamination, following an accident that results in the release of a significant amount of radiological material. Because KPS is permanently shut down and defueled, it is no longer possible for the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents or other credible events at KPS to exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. The licensee has performed site-specific analyses of highly unlikely, beyond-design- basis zirconium fire accidents involving the stored irradiated fuel in the SFP. The analyses show that after October 30, 2014, the probabilities of such an accident are minimal. The NRC staff's evaluation of the licensee's analyses confirm this conclusion. The NRC staff also finds that the licensee's proposed $50 million level of onsite insurance is consistent with the bounding cleanup and decontamination cost, as discussed in SECY-96-256, to account for hypothetical rupture of a large liquid radwaste tank at the KPS site, should such an event occur. The staff notes that KPS's technical specifications provide controls for unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks to limit the quantity of radioactivity contained in these tanks, in the event of an uncontrolled release of the contents of these tanks. Therefore, the staff concludes that the application of the current requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to maintain $1.06 billion in onsite insurance coverage is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule for the permanently shutdown and defueled KPS reactor. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), special circumstances are present whenever compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. The NRC staff concludes that if the licensee was required to continue to maintain an onsite insurance level of $1.06 billion, the associated insurance premiums would be in excess of those necessary and commensurate with the radiological contamination risks posed by the site. In addition, such insurance levels would be significantly in excess of other decommissioning reactor facilities that have been granted similar exemptions by the NRC. The NRC staff finds that compliance with the existing rule would result in an undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted and are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. Therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) exist. E. Environmental Considerations The NRC approval of the exemption to insurance or indemnity requirements belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from further analysis under Sec. 51.22(c)(25). Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is a categorical exclusion provided that (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is [[Page 19701]] no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve: Surety, insurance, or indemnity requirements The Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because reducing the licensee's onsite property damage insurance for KPS does 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. The exempted financial protection regulation is unrelated to the operation of KPS. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term (i.e., potential amount of radiation in an accident), nor mitigation. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences of, a radiological accident. In addition, there would be no significant impacts to biota, water resources, historic properties, cultural resources, or socioeconomic conditions in the region. The requirement for onsite property damage insurance may be viewed as involving surety, insurance, or indemnity matters. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request. IV. Conclusions Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants DEK an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1), to permit the licensee to reduce its onsite property damage insurance to a level of $50 million. The exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of April, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-08395 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Notices 19697
Part of the justification for granting C. the exemption is consistent with hazards consideration determination,
the exemption was provided by the the common defense and security; and opportunity for a hearing in
review of the amendment. Because the D. special circumstances are present connection with these actions, was
exemption is necessary in order to issue in that the application of the rule in this published in the Federal Register on
the requested license amendment, the circumstance is not necessary to serve August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45480). The
NRC granted the exemption and issued the underlying purpose of the rule; August 28, September 19, November 6
the amendment concurrently, rather E. the special circumstances outweigh and December 23, 2014 licensee
than in sequence. This included issuing any decrease in safety that may result supplements had no effect on the no
a combined safety evaluation containing from the reduction in standardization significant hazards consideration
the NRC staff’s review of both the caused by the exemption; and determination, and no comments were
exemption request and the license F. the exemption will not result in a received during the 60-day comment
amendment. The exemption met all significant decrease in the level of safety period.
applicable regulatory criteria set forth in otherwise provided by the design. The Commission has determined that
10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section 2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted these amendments satisfy the criteria for
VIII.A.4 of Appendix D to 10 CFR part an exemption to the provisions of 10 categorical exclusion in accordance
52. The license amendment was found CFR part 52, Appendix D, Table 3.3–1, with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to be acceptable as well. The combined ‘‘Definition of Wall Thicknesses for to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
safety evaluation is available in ADAMS Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine impact statement or environmental
under Accession No. ML15005A265. Building, and Annex Building’’ and assessment need be prepared for these
Identical exemption documents Table 3.3–7, ‘‘Nuclear Island Critical amendments.
(except for referenced unit numbers and Structural Sections’’ as described in the
licensee’s request dated July 3, 2014 and IV. Conclusion
license numbers) were issued to the
licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs supplemented by the letters dated Using the reasons set forth in the
NPF–91 and NPF–92). The exemption August 28, September 19, November 6, combined safety evaluation, the staff
documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can and December 23, 2014. This exemption granted the exemption and issued the
be found in ADAMS under Accession is related to, and necessary for the amendment that the licensee requested
Nos. ML15005A222 and ML15005A224, granting of License Amendment No. 29, on July 3, 2014, as supplemented by
respectively. The exemption is which is being issued concurrently with letters dated August 28, September 19,
reproduced (with the exception of this exemption. November 6 and December 23, 2014.
3. As explained in Section 5.0, The exemption and amendment were
abbreviated titles and additional
‘‘Environmental Consideration,’’ of the issued on January 13, 2015 as part of a
citations) in Section II of this document.
NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation (ADAMS combined package to the licensee
The amendment documents for COLs
Accession No. ML15005A265), this (ADAMS Accession No. ML15005A210).
NPF–91 and NPF–92 are available in
exemption meets the eligibility criteria
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10
ML15005A246 and ML15005A256, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to
respectively. A summary of the of April 2015.
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
amendment documents is provided in For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
impact statement or environmental
Section III of this document. Chandu Patel,
assessment needs to be prepared in
II. Exemption connection with the issuance of the Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division
exemption. of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New
Reproduced below is the exemption Reactors.
4. This exemption is effective as of
document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and [FR Doc. 2015–08411 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am]
January 13, 2015.
Unit 4. It makes reference to the BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
combined safety evaluation that III. License Amendment Request
provides the reasoning for the findings By letter dated July 3, 2014, and
made by the NRC (and listed under Item supplemented by letters dated August NUCLEAR REGULATORY
1) in order to grant the exemption: 28, September 19, November 6, and COMMISSION
1. In a letter dated July 3, 2014, and December 23, 2014, the licensee
supplemented by letters dated August [Docket No. 50–305; NRC–2015–0089]
requested that the NRC amend the COLs
28, September 19, November 6, and for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.;
December 23, 2014, the licensee and NPF–92. The proposed amendment Kewaunee Power Station
requested from the Commission an is described in Section I of this Federal
exemption from the provisions of 10 Register Notice. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, The Commission has determined for Commission.
as part of license amendment request these amendments that the application ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
14–001, ‘‘Containment Internal complies with the standards and
Structural Module Design Details (LAR– requirements of the Atomic Energy Act SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
14–001).’’ of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission (NRC) is issuing an
For the reasons set forth in Section Commission’s rules and regulations. exemption from the requirement to
3.1, ‘‘Evaluation of Exemption,’’ of the The Commission has made appropriate maintain a specified level of onsite
NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation, which property damage insurance in response
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
findings as required by the Act and the
can be found in ADAMS under Commission’s rules and regulations in to a request from Dominion Energy
Accession No. ML15005A265, the 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK or the licensee)
Commission finds that: the license amendment. dated March 20, 2014. This exemption
A. the exemption is authorized by A notice of consideration of issuance would permit the licensee to reduce its
law; of amendment to facility operating onsite property damage insurance from
B. the exemption presents no undue license or combined license, as $1.06 billion to $50 million.
risk to public health and safety; applicable, proposed no significant DATES: April 13, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:02 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19767/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Notices 19701
no significant increase in individual or CFR 50.54(w)(1), to permit the licensee • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
cumulative public or occupational to reduce its onsite property damage Access and Management System
radiation exposure; (iv) there is no insurance to a level of $50 million. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
significant construction impact; (v) The exemption is effective upon available documents online in the
there is no significant increase in the issuance. ADAMS Public Documents collection at
potential for or consequences from Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
radiological accidents; and (vi) the of April, 2015. adams.html. To begin the search, select
requirements from which an exemption For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
is sought involve: Surety, insurance, or Michele G. Evans, select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
indemnity requirements Director, Division of Operating Reactor Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
The Director, Division of Operating Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor please contact the NRC’s Public
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Regulation. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
Reactor Regulation, has determined that [FR Doc. 2015–08395 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
approval of the exemption request email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
involves no significant hazards supporting statement is available in
consideration because reducing the ADAMS under Accession No ADAMS
licensee’s onsite property damage NUCLEAR REGULATORY ML15040A059.
insurance for KPS does not (1) involve COMMISSION • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
a significant increase in the probability purchase copies of public documents at
or consequences of an accident [NRC–2014–0247] the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
previously evaluated; or (2) create the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
possibility of a new or different kind of Information Collection: General
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
accident from any accident previously Domestic Licenses for Byproduct • NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of
evaluated; or (3) involve a significant Material the collection of information and related
reduction in a margin of safety. The AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory instructions may be obtained without
exempted financial protection Commission. charge by contacting the NRC’s
regulation is unrelated to the operation ACTION: Notice of submission to the Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell,
of KPS. Accordingly, there is no Office of Management and Budget; Office of Information Services, U.S.
significant change in the types or request for comment. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
significant increase in the amounts of Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
any effluents that may be released SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 301–415–6258; email:
offsite; and no significant increase in Commission (NRC) has recently INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV.
individual or cumulative public or submitted a request for renewal of an
occupational radiation exposure. The existing collection of information to the B. Submitting Comments
exempted regulation is not associated Office of Management and Budget The NRC cautions you not to include
with construction, so there is no (OMB) for review. The information identifying or contact information in
significant construction impact. The collection is entitled, General Domestic comment submissions that you do not
exempted regulation does not concern Licenses for Byproduct Material.’’ want to be publicly disclosed in your
the source term (i.e., potential amount DATES: Submit comments by May 13, comment submission. All comment
of radiation in an accident), nor 2015. submissions are posted at http://
mitigation. Therefore, there is no ADDRESSES: Submit comments directly
www.regulations.gov and entered into
significant increase in the potential for, to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, ADAMS. Comment submissions are not
or consequences of, a radiological Desk Officer, Office of Information, and routinely edited to remove identifying
accident. In addition, there would be no Regulatory Affairs (3150–0016), NEOB– or contact information.
significant impacts to biota, water 10202, Office of Management and If you are requesting or aggregating
resources, historic properties, cultural Budget, Washington, DC 20503; comments from other persons for
resources, or socioeconomic conditions telephone: 202–395–1741, email: submission to the OMB, then you
in the region. The requirement for onsite Vladik_Dorjets@omb.eop.gov. should inform those persons not to
property damage insurance may be include identifying or contact
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
viewed as involving surety, insurance, information that they do not want to be
Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance
or indemnity matters. publicly disclosed in their comment
Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR submission. Your request should state
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no that comment submissions are not
0001; telephone: 301–415–6258; email:
environmental impact statement or routinely edited to remove such
INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@nrc.gov.
environmental assessment need be information before making the comment
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
prepared in connection with the submissions available to the public or
approval of this exemption request. I. Obtaining Information and entering the comment into ADAMS.
IV. Conclusions Submitting Comments II. Background
Accordingly, the Commission has A. Obtaining Information Under the provisions of the
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by 0247 when contacting the NRC about U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently
law, will not present an undue risk to the availability of information for this submitted a request for renewal of an
the public health and safety, and is action. You may obtain publicly- existing collection of information to
consistent with the common defense available information related to this OMB for review entitled, ‘‘General
and security. Also, special action by any of the following methods: Domestic Licenses for Byproduct
circumstances are present. Therefore, • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Material.’’ The NRC hereby informs
the Commission hereby grants DEK an http://www.regulations.gov and search potential respondents that an agency
exemption from the requirements of 10 for Docket ID NRC–2014–0247. may not conduct or sponsor, and that a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:02 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19767/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 11:21:48
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 11:21:48
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Exemption; issuance. | |
| Dates | April 13, 2015. | |
| Contact | William Huffman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2046; email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 19697 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR