[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32742-32749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12827]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or
Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards
Information
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission 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 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 sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards
information (SGI).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
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
[[Page 32743]]
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 in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. 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.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings''
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available
records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, 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 petitioner/requestor
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
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor 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, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital 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/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The
[[Page 32744]]
Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information
about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC 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 may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a 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. 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 this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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 Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 3, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 5.6.3.b to allow
a reconfiguration of the fuel racks in spent fuel pool (SFP) C and
allow the use of Metamic as an alternate neutron poison material in the
new storage racks for SFP C and D. The proposed amendment will: (1)
revise the rack configuration in SFP C to allow the substitution of
four previously approved (13 x 13 cell) boiling water reactor racks
with an equal number of (9 x 9 cell) pressurized water reactor racks,
and (2) authorize the use of Metamic as an alternate spent fuel rack
poison material.
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 license amendment only revises the SFP C configuration and
provides an optional poison material Metamic for the spent fuel pool
racks. These changes do not modify the design of Structures, Systems
and Components (SSCs) that could initiate an accident. This system
has been evaluated for the conditions that would exist with the new
configuration and new poison materials. It was found that the rack
configuration has been previously evaluated for all enveloping
accidents. Also, the Metamic poison material has been evaluated for
all enveloping accidents and it can be concluded that there would be
no increase in dose from a fuel handling accident in the FHB [Fuel
Handling Building].
Therefore, 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 license amendment only revises the SFP C configuration and
allows the optional poison material Metamic for the spent fuel pool
racks. License Amendment 103 Safety Evaluation addressed applicable
design basis accidents for the addition of the SFP racks. Since no
structural properties are attributed to the Boral or Metamic, this
is an acceptable substitution. The properties of Metamic are
[[Page 32745]]
equal to or better than Boral in ensuring criticality control. No
significant impact on any postulated accident is made due to this
change. The Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System (FPCCS) and Spent
Fuel Pool Racks will operate within design parameters.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
In accordance with License Amendment 103 and the submitted
Holtec report in Attachment 7, the change in the Spent Fuel Pool
Rack configuration and poison substitution is bounded by previous
evaluations of the safety-related systems to design basis accidents.
The fixed neutron absorber (Metamic) has been demonstrated as
acceptable for dry and wet storage applications on a generic basis.
Additionally, the NRC has approved the use of Metamic in both wet
storage and dry storage nuclear plant applications.
The margin of safety for sub criticality is maintained by having
keff [effective multiplication factor] equal to or less than 0.95
under all normal storage, fuel handling and accident conditions,
including uncertainties. Since Metamic provides a lower calculated
keff than does Boral, 0.90929 versus 0.91062, the margin of safety
slightly increases with the use of Metamic.Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2007.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt the
bypass test time, Completion Time, and Surveillance Frequency changes
through the implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1 and WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no
hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS),
engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS), and loss of
power (LOP) diesel generator start and bus separation
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant
design basis. The changes to the TSs do not result in a condition
where the design, material, and construction standards that were
applicable prior to the change are altered. The proposed changes
will not modify any system interface. The proposed changes will not
affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no
degradation in the performance of or an increase in the number of
challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function
during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal
plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance. The
proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any
mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The determination that the results of the proposed changes are
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared
for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for
WCAP-1 5376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002).
Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an
insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has
been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of
the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC
Safety Evaluation conditions.
The proposed changes to the Completion Times, bypass test times,
and Surveillance Frequencies reduce the potential for inadvertent
reactor trips and spurious engineered safety feature (ESF)
actuations, and therefore do not increase the probability of any
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not change
the response of the plant to any accidents and have an insignificant
impact on the reliability of the RTS, ESFAS and LOP diesel generator
start and bus separation signals. The RTS, ESFAS and LOP diesel
generator start and bus separation instrumentation will remain
highly reliable and the proposed changes will not result in a
significant increase in the risk of plant operation. This is
demonstrated by showing that the impact on plant safety as measured
by the increase in core damage frequency (CDF) is less than 1.0E-06
per year and the increase in large early release frequency (LERF) is
less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition, for the Completion Time
changes, the incremental conditional core damage probabilities
(ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early release
probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08,
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in
Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS, ESFAS
and LOP diesel generator start and bus separation instrumentation
will continue to perform their functions with high reliability as
originally assumed, and the risk impact as measured by the
[utri]CDF, [utri]LERF, ICCDP, and ICLERP risk metrics is within the
acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not
be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and component from
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions
and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety
function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of
plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical
alteration to any plant system nor will there be any change in the
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety
function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident
analysis assumptions.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for
any analyzed event
[[Page 32746]]
nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit (SAL). There will
be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined
nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions.
The redundancy of RTS and ESFAS trains and the LOP diesel
generator start and bus separation instrumentation is maintained,
and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip
and ESF actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as
primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the
acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human factors
benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test times, it
is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a reduced
potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations associated with
testing.
Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
(a) Reduced testing should result in fewer inadvertent reactor
trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, less frequent
distraction of operations personnel without significantly affecting
RTS and ESFAS reliability.
(b) Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in
monitoring and controlling plant operation should be realized. This
is due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift
supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short
Completion Times.
(c) The time provided by the proposed increase in Completion
Times and bypass test times should reduce the potential for human
errors by the personnel performing Required Actions, corrective
maintenance, and Surveillance Testing.
(d) The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers
should provide additional time to complete test and maintenance
activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced
outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion
Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the
logic trains.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Units 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: April 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the list of topical reports used to prepare the
core operating limits report by adding a new methodology that
implements a realistic analysis methodology. The proposed changes would
add a new reference in Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.14.a. The
new reference is ``EMF-2103P-A, ``Realistic Large Break LOCA
Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors''.'' The change would be
utilized in core loading designs for Unit 1 fuel-load configurations in
future operating cycles.
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 change adds an approved analytical method for
evaluating a large break (LB) loss of coolant accident (LOCA). The
proposed change will not affect previously evaluated accidents
because they continue to be analyzed by NRC approved methodologies
to ensure required safety limits are maintained. The acceptance
criteria of the SQN Final Safety Analysis Report analyzed accidents
and anticipated operational occurrences are not affected by the
proposed addition of the realistic LB LOCA methodology. As the
evaluations for accidents and operation occurrences are not
adversely affected, the proposed change will not increase the
consequences of a postulated event.
The proposed change does not result in any modification of the
plant equipment or operating practices and therefore, does not alter
plant conditions or plant response prior to or after postulated
events.
Therefore, 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.
As previously noted, the proposed change does not result in any
modification of the plant equipment or operating practices and
therefore, does not alter plant conditions or plant response prior
to or after postulated events.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter plant equipment including the
automatic accident mitigation setpoints designed to mitigate the
affects of a postulated accident. The accident analyses and plant
safety limits continue to be acceptable as evaluated by NRC approved
methodologies. The proposed application of the realistic LB LOCA
methodology ensures acceptable margins and limits for fuel core
designs.
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 request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos.
50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Beaver County, Pennsylvania; Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos.
50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee
1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under
10 CFR
[[Page 32747]]
2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be
considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI and/or SGI 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, MD 20852. The
e-mail 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\ See footnote 6. 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 and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted
as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
b. 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 (a);
c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding,
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention;
d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and
information that shows:
(i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and
use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and
specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a
potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified
expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective
order; and
e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-248 (fingerprint card), and a credit
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI.
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically,
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration
at 301-415-0320.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in
original ink, accompanied by a check or money order payable in the
amount of $191.00 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each
individual, and mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security
Processing Unit, Mail Stop T-6E46, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail addess. After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check.
Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request
letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as
described above.
4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten
days of receipt of the written access 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) there is a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training,
education, or experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI
requested in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff
redaction of information from requested documents before their
release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These
procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 25
days after receipt of (or access to) that information. 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 or SGI contentions by that later
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the
Chief Administative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32748]]
8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within five (5) days,
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access
determination (and may participate in the development of such a
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by
the release of the information (e.g., as with properietary
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or
explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's
adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect
to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within five
(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 Sec. 2.318(a); or (c) if another
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with
that officer. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
In the same manner, 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 within five (5) days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As of Ocober 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule''
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that
the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff
determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer
of the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI/SGI
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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/or SGI, 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2008.
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 (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
proposed action and opportunity for
hearing, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10........................... Deadline for submitting requests for
access to SUNSI and/or SGI 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; demonstrating
that access should be granted (e.g.,
showing technical competence for access
to SGI); and, for SGI, including
application fee for fingerprint/
background check.
60........................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i)
Demonstration of standing; (ii) all
contentions whose formulation does not
require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25
Answers to petition for intervention; +7
petitioner/requestor reply).
20........................... 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 (1) need for SUNSI
or (2) need to know for SGI. (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). If NRC staff makes
the finding of need to know for SGI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
background check (including
fingerprinting for a criminal history
records check), information processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents), and readiness
inspections.
25........................... If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' ``need to
know,'' or 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.
[[Page 32749]]
190.......................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds
standing, need to know for SGI, and
trustworthiness and reliability,
deadline for NRC staff to file motion
for Protective Order and draft Non-
disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
determination that the proposed
recipient of SGI is not trustworthy or
reliable). Note: Before the Office of
Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding access, the
proposed recipient must be provided an
opportunity to correct or explain
information.
205.......................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal
of a final adverse NRC staff
determination either before the
presiding officer or another designated
officer.
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 and/or SGI consistent with
decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28....................... Deadline for submission of contentions
whose development depends upon access to
SUNSI and/or SGI. 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 or SGI contentions by that later
deadline.
A + 53....................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends
upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60....................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
B............................ Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-12827 Filed 6-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P