[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67797-67804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27753]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0240]
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 five amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
Unit 2; Cooper Nuclear Station; and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit
1. 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 December 3, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 4, 2016. 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 November 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-2015-0240. 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.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0240 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-2015-0240.
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.
[[Page 67798]]
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-2015-0240, 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.
I. 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.
II. 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
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
[[Page 67799]]
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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures.
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).
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.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by
January 4, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)''
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that
under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
January 4, 2016.
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/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
[[Page 67800]]
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, in some instances, 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.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on
obtaining information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining
Information and Submitting Comments,'' section of this document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois; and Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 6, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated September 1, 2015. Publicly-available versions are
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15055A154 and ML15251A381,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to delete no longer used
methodologies and to add the AREVA analysis methodologies to the list
of approved methods to be used in determining the core operating limits
in the COLR. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, also proposes to revise
DNPS and QCNPS TS 3.2.3, ``Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR),'' and TS
3.7.7, ``The Main Turbine Bypass System.'' In addition, the proposed
amendment would change one of the Allowable Values in the DNPS and
QCNPS TS Surveillance Requirement 3.3.4.1.4, ``ATWS-RPT [Anticipated
Transient Without Scram Recirculation Pump Trip] Instrumentation.''
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:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no effect on any accident initiator or
precursor previously evaluated and does not change the manner in
which the core is operated. The type of fuel is not a precursor to
any accident. The new methodologies for determining core operating
limits have been validated to ensure that the output accurately
models predicted core behavior, and use of the methodologies will be
within the ranges previously approved. The new methodologies being
referenced have all been submitted to the NRC, and have been
approved.
The proposed changes to the TS associated with LHGR and the Main
Turbine Bypass System, support the new analyses performed as part of
the transition to ATRIUM 10XM fuel. These changes do not require
modification to the plant and do not impact any initiators of an
accident previously analyzed. Implementation of these changes will
ensure that the basis for the accident and transient analyses are
maintained throughout the operating cycle.
The proposed change to the ATWS-RPT high RPV [reactor pressure
vessel] steam dome pressure does not require modification to the
facility beyond the conservative reduction of the allowable value
(AV). The proposed change will be implemented through revision of
the associated surveillance test procedures, where the revised AV
will replace the existing value.
Calculation of the AV to plant-specific parameters provides
additional confidence that protective instrumentation that passes
the surveillance testing criteria will perform its design function
without exceeding the associated limit.
The revised AV for the ATWS-RPT is not considered an initiator
to any previously analyzed accident and therefore, cannot increase
the probability of any previously evaluated accident. Implementation
of the revised AV will ensure that the instrumentation will perform
its required function to meet the accident analysis assumptions. The
proposed AV will ensure that the fuel is adequately cooled and over
pressurization of the nuclear steam supply system is prevented
following an accident or transient. The proposed change does not
increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change in the administratively controlled
analytical methods does not affect the ability to successfully
respond to previously evaluated accidents and does not affect
radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. The source term
from ATRIUM 10XM fuel will be bounded by the source term assumed in
the accident analyses. Since the proposed change ensures the same
level of protection as assumed in the accident analyses, the
conclusions of the accident scenarios remain valid. As a result, no
changes to radiological release parameters are involved. There is no
effect on the type or amount of radiation released, and there is no
effect on predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident.
[[Page 67801]]
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 proposed change does not affect the performance of any DNPS
or QCNPS structure, system, or component credited with mitigating
any accident previously evaluated. The use of new analytical
methods, which have been reviewed and approved by the NRC, for the
design of a core reload will not affect the control parameters
governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to
transient conditions. The proposed change does not introduce any new
modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. The proposed TS
changes ensure operation in compliance with the accident and
transient analyses.
The proposed change to the ATWS-RPT AV does not involve any
physical changes to the ATWS-RPT system or associated components
beyond the reduction in the ATWSRPT AV for high reactor vessel steam
dome pressure, or the manner in which the ATWS-RPT system functions.
The proposed change will not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated nor will the functional demands on credited
equipment be changed. The change in methods governing normal plant
operation is consistent with the current ATWS analysis assumptions
specified in the DNPS and QCNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR).
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change to TS 3.2.3 provides assurance the operating
parameters are consistent with the inputs to the transient analyses
which take credit for conservatisms in scram speed performance. The
proposed change does not alter the acceptance criteria for control
rod scram times. The proposed revision to TS 3.7.7 allows the
flexibility to take credit for LHGR limits defined in the COLR based
on the analyses supporting the transition to ATRIUM 10XM fuel. The
proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5.b adds new analytical methods
for design and analysis of core reloads to the list of methods
currently used to determine the core operating limits. The NRC has
previously approved the analytical methods being added.
The proposed change also lowers the ATWS-RPT AV for RPT on high
reactor steam dome pressure. There is no decrease in the margin of
safety, since the maximum reactor vessel pressure for a postulated
ATWS event and ASME overpressure event is maintained below the
acceptance criteria. The proposed change will be implemented through
revisions to the associated surveillance test procedures where the
revised AV replaces the existing AV. Since the availability of the
ATWS-RPT system will be maintained and since the system design is
unaffected, the proposed change ensures the instrumentation is
capable of performing its intended function.
Since the setpoint at which the ATWS-RPT is activated is not a
safety limit, the proposed change does not modify any safety limits
at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the
requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment
assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no 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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra (Tami) Domeyer, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 3, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15252A204.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1 (``Reactor
Core SLs''). Specifically, this change incorporates revised Safety
Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) due to the cycle specific
analysis performed by Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) for the introduction of
GNF2 fuel for NMP2, Cycle 16.
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:
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 21.
The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that during
normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, at
least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs
preserve the existing margin to transition boiling.
The Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit is
reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The
analyses for NMP2, Cycle 16, have concluded that a two recirculation
loop MCPR safety limit of >= [greater than or equal to] 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
NMP2 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any plant modifications
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance or that could affect the probability of operator error.
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 abnormal operational transients,
at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling 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 21. The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of
operation, any changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The
proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be acceptable
for Cycle 16 operation. 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 not
result in the creation of any new precursors to an accident.
Therefore, this 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.
[[Page 67802]]
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 21. The SLMCPRs ensure that during
normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, at
least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the limit is 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, 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, Senior Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General Counsel, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under package Accession No. ML15229A031.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the CNS Technical Specifications (TS) by
relocating pressure and temperature (P/T) limit curves to a pressure
and temperature limits report (PTLR). The proposed amendment would
modify TS Section 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel
heatup and cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with
references to the PTLR. A definition for the PTLR will be added to TS
Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' and a section addressing administrative
requirements for the PTLR will be added to TS Section 5.6, ``Reporting
Requirements.'' The existing CNS NRC-approved P/T limit curves for 32
effective full-power years are not being revised as a part of this
relocation. In addition, editorial corrections are being made to the TS
Table of Contents.
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:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS by replacing references to
existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and P/T
limit curves with references to the PTLR. In 10 CFR 50, Appendix G,
requirements are established to protect the integrity of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants.
Continued use of an Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
methodology for calculating P/T limit curves and relocating those
curves to a PTLR provide an equivalent level of assurance that RCPB
integrity will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, and does not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the
plant is operated and maintained. The ability of structures,
systems, and components to perform their intended safety functions
is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and the
assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of
previously evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 relocation of P/T limits to the PTLR is administrative in
nature and does not alter or involve any design basis accident
initiators. RCPB integrity will continue to be maintained in
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and the accident performance
of plant structures, systems, and components will not be affected.
These changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant,
and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment is administrative in nature and does not
affect the function of the RCPB or its response during plant
transients. Continuing to calculate the P/T limits using NRC-
approved methodology ensures adequate margins of safety relating to
RCPB integrity are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or
limiting conditions for operation are determined, there are no
changes to set points at which protective actions are initiated, and
the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for
accident mitigation are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), Docket No. 50-321, Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 1, 2015. A publicly-available
versions is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15252A186.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would change the Technical Specification value of the Safety
Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for both single and dual
recirculation loop operation.
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:
The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards
consideration because:
1. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) ensures
that, 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be susceptible to
boiling transition during normal operation or the most limiting
postulated design-basis transient event. The new SLMCPR values
preserve the existing margin to the onset of transition boiling;
therefore, the probability of fuel damage is not increased as a
result of this proposed change. The determination of the revised HNP
Unit 1 SLMCPRs has been performed using NRC-approved methods of
evaluation. These plant-specific calculations are performed each
operating cycle and may require changes for future cycles. The
revised SLMCPR values do not change the method of operating the
plant; therefore, they have no
[[Page 67803]]
effect on the probability of an accident initiating event or
transient.
Based on the above, SNC has concluded that the proposed change
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for
the HNP Unit 1 core reload design. These changes do not involve any
new or different methods for operating the facility. No new
initiating events or transients result from these changes.
Based on the above, SNC has concluded that the proposed change
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from those previously evaluated.
3. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The new SLMCPRs have been calculated using NRC-approved methods
of evaluation with plant and cycle-specific input values for the
fuel and core design for the upcoming cycle of operation. The SLMCPR
values ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be
susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or the
most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The operating
MCPR limit is set appropriately above the safety limit value to
ensure adequate margin when the cycle-specific transients are
evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is maintained with the
revised values.
As a result, SNC has determined that the proposed change will
not result in a significant reduction in the 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; and
Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units
1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-321, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Appling County, 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 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
[[Page 67804]]
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 23rd day of October, 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. 2015-27753 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P