[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11492-11498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0030]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1
and 2; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2; Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units
1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The NRC proposes to determine that
each amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by April 2, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by May 4, 2015. Any potential party as defined in Sec.
2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by March 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0030. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: O12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0030 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0030.
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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0030, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
[[Page 11493]]
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in
the Federal Register. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals/
[[Page 11494]]
getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal
server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
[email protected].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 16, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14289A580.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would allow utilization of WCAP-16143-P, Revision 1,
``Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Flange Requirements Evaluation for
Byron/Braidwood Units 1 and 2,'' dated October 2014, as an analytical
method to determine the reactor coolant system pressure and temperature
(P-T) limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] has evaluated the proposed
change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using the criteria
in 10 CFR 50.92, and has determined that the proposed change does
[[Page 11495]]
not involve a significant hazards consideration. The following
information is provided to support a finding of no significant
hazards consideration.
Criteria
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes to the analysis do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions or
conditions of the facility previously approved by the NRC, or the
manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The revisions
to the subject WCAP [WCAP-16143[-P]] do not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
changes also do not affect the source term, containment isolation,
or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated; do
not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may
be released offsite; and do not significantly increase individual or
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The use of WCAP-16143[-P], Revision 1, for generation of
[Reactor Pressure Vessel] RPV P-T limits, will continue to ensure
that RPV integrity is maintained under all conditions. The revisions
contained in WCAP-16143[-P], Revision 1, and the changes proposed to
TS [Technical Specifications] Table 1.1-1 do not change the
conclusions of WCAP-16143[-P], Revision 0, previously approved by
the NRC; nor do they change the way the RPV is analyzed or performs
its safety function. Subsequently, these changes do not result in
the creation of any new accident initiators or precursors; do not
result in changes to any existing accident scenarios; and do not
introduce any operational changes or mechanisms that would create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change any safety limits or reduce
the margin of safety to any safety limits. The stress analysis and
fracture mechanics evaluation, documented in the revision to WCAP-
16143[-P], determined that for the RPV boltup condition, the RPV 54-
stud case (i.e., all RPV head studs in-service) was more limiting
than the RPV 53-stud case (i.e., one RPV head stud out-of-service).
In addition, the conclusions of the updated analysis for the RPV 54-
stud case confirmed the conclusions from WCAP-16143, Revision 0.
This change, subsequently, has no impact on the current RPV P-T
limit curves.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do
not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: December 5, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14342A229.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) related to
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs). The proposed
changes result from a cycle-specific analysis performed to support the
operation of PBAPS, Unit 2, in the upcoming Cycle 21. The re-analysis
was performed to accommodate operation in the Maximum Extended Load
Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based on a separate
license amendment request (LAR) dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14247A503).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical
Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific
thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed
in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application for
Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that during
normal operation and during anticipated operational transients, at
least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling
transition if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs preserve
the existing margin to boiling transition.
The MCPR safety limit is reevaluated for each reload using NRC-
approved methodologies. The analyses for PBAPS, Unit 2 Cycle 21,
with the addition of operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain, have
concluded that a two recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of >=1.15,
based on the application of Global Nuclear Fuel's NRC-approved MCPR
safety limit methodology, will ensure that this acceptance criterion
is met. For single recirculation loop operation, a MCPR safety limit
of >=1.15 also ensures that this acceptance criterion is met. The
MCPR operating limits are presented and controlled in accordance
with the PBAPS Unit 2 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any additional plant
modifications or operational changes that could affect system
reliability or performance or that could affect the probability of
operator error beyond those associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS
Accession No. ML14247A503]. The requested changes do not affect any
postulated accident precursors, do not affect any accident
mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation
mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that
during normal operation and during anticipated operational
transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. The new
SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC-approved methodology discussed in
NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application for Reactor
Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. The proposed
changes do not involve any new modes of operation, any changes to
setpoints, or any plant modifications beyond those associated with
the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503]. The proposed
revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be acceptable for
Cycle 21 operation with the MELLLA+ operating domain. The core
operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-approved
methods. The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods for establishing
the core operating limits do
[[Page 11496]]
not result in the creation of any new precursors to an accident.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety
previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to
the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The SLMCPRs ensure that during normal operation and during
anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods
in the core do not experience boiling transition if the limits are
not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding integrity.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: October 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14275A444.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments request approval to perform the fuel assembly structural
analyses based on a pipe break that considers the application of leak-
before-break, which allows the exclusion of the dynamic effects of
certain pipe breaks, consistent with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A,
General Design Criterion 4, ``Environmental and design effects design
bases,'' for DCPP, Units 1 and 2. The fuel assembly structural analyses
are performed to satisfy NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the
Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR
Edition,'' Section 4.2, ``Fuel System Design,'' Appendix A,
``Evaluation of Fuel Assembly Structural Response to Externally Applied
Forces,'' Revision 3, March 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070740002).
Further, the licensee requests approval to use the fuel assembly
structural analysis results to satisfy, in part, the emergency core
cooling system performance criterion, 10 CFR 50.46(b)(4), ``Coolable
geometry.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests approval to perform the fuel
assembly structural analyses based on a pipe break that considers
the application of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). Performing the fuel
assembly structural analyses based on a pipe break that considers
the application of LBB will not impact any accident previously
evaluated.
No physical changes are being made to the plant as a result of
this change. DCPP will continue to satisfy the criteria of 10 CFR
50.46(b) with this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the
plant. The best-estimate large break loss-of-coolant [accident]
(BELOCA) analyses are not impacted by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The revised fuel structural integrity analysis incorporates the
reduced LBB loads and therefore will not decrease the margin of
safety to the 10 CFR 50.46 limits. The BELOCA analyses are not
impacted by this change, and the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46(b)
continue to be met. The proposed change does not involve any changes
to the fuel, reactor vessel, or containment fission product
barriers. Therefore there will be no impact on the accident analyses
that are contained in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424 and
50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama; Docket
Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and
2, City of Dalton, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14365A352.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed license amendment request is for a change to the
Milestone 8 implementation schedule for the SNC CSP, as cited by the
existing FOLs [facility operating licenses] applicable to FNP, HNP
and VEGP Units 1 and 2.
The CSP is designed to provide high assurance that the systems
within the scope of Sec. 73.54 are protected from cyber attacks.
The CSP itself does not require any plant modifications, but the
plan describes appropriate configuration management requirements to
assure plant modifications involving digital computer systems are
reviewed to provide adequate protection against cyber attacks, up to
and including the design basis threat as defined in Sec. 73.54.
The proposed change is a schedule change for CSP implementation
only; it will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility
to add citation of the license amendment establishing the new
Milestone 8 completion date. This change is administrative in nature
and does not alter
[[Page 11497]]
the plant configuration, involve the installation of new plant
equipment, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any new
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-
operated facility to add citation of the license amendment
establishing the new Milestone 8 completion date for CSP
implementation. This change is administrative in nature and does not
alter plant configuration, install new plant equipment, alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, tested, or inspected.
Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed SNC CSP Milestone 8 implementation date change does
not alter plant configuration, install new plant equipment, alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, tested, or inspected. Plant safety margins are
established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting
Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical
Specifications. Because there is no change to these established
safety margins, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in
a margin of safety.
The proposed change will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-
operated facility to add citation of the license amendment
establishing the new Milestone 8 completion date. This change is
administrative in nature and does not involve a reduction in margin
of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness
Center Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois, Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, City of Dalton, Georgia
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is
[[Page 11498]]
granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the
information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This
provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing
and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of
10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10........................... Deadline for submitting requests for
access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with
information: supporting the standing of
a potential party identified by name and
address; describing the need for the
information in order for the potential
party to participate meaningfully in an
adjudicatory proceeding.
60........................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i)
Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all
contentions whose formulation does not
require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/
requestor reply).
20........................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the
staff's determination whether the
request for access provides a reasonable
basis to believe standing can be
established and shows need for SUNSI.
(NRC staff also informs any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of
the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC
staff makes the finding of need for
SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC
staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents).
25........................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's denial of access; NRC staff
files copy of access determination with
the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated
officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff
finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
for any party to the proceeding whose
interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant
of access.
30........................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions
to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40........................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing
and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
staff to complete information processing
and file motion for Protective Order and
draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline
for applicant/licensee to file Non-
Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A............................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer
decision on motion for protective order
for access to sensitive information
(including schedule for providing access
and submission of contentions) or
decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3........................ Deadline for filing executed Non-
Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided
to SUNSI consistent with decision
issuing the protective order.
A + 28....................... Deadline for submission of contentions
whose development depends upon access to
SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner's receipt
of (or access to) the information and
the deadline for filing all other
contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
A + 53....................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends
upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60....................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60...................... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-03917 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P