[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17226-17233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8455]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0160]
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
[[Page 17227]]
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 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
and Directives Branch, TWB-05-B01M, 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. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 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, 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 subject amendment to the facility operating license.
Such request(s) and petition(s) should be filed via electronic
submission through the NRC E-Filing system. Request(s) for a hearing
and petition(s) 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.html. 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
[[Page 17228]]
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
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 E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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 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 ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM 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 Web site 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 electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. The electronic
filing Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by
e-mail at [email protected].
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 or the presiding
officer of 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).
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, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such information. 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].
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of Amendment Request: September 17, 2008, as supplemented by
letter dated February 26, 2009. The revised proposed no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) included in the February 26, 2009, letter
replaces the NSHC in the letter dated September 17, 2008, in its
entirety.
Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS)
5.6, ``Fuel Storage,'' is being revised to take credit for soluble
boron in Region 1 (cask storage pit) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and
refueling canal) fuel storage racks for the storage of both Standard
and Next Generation
[[Page 17229]]
Fuel (NGF) assemblies. Two new TS Limiting Conditions for Operation and
associated Surveillance Requirements, 3/4 9.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)
Boron Concentration,'' and 3/4 9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool,'' have been
added to ensure the required boron concentration is maintained in the
spent fuel storage racks and that spent fuel storage racks are within
the design parameters, respectively. The proposed change is evaluated
for both normal operation and accident conditions and is intended to
provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF assemblies in
the spent fuel storage racks.
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 purpose of the spent fuel storage racks is to maintain fresh
and irradiated fuel in a safe storage condition. The proposed
changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage area) and Region 2
(spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant shutdown, refueling
canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking credit for soluble
boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and loading
restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and increasing the
keff [effective (neutron) multiplication factor] limit
for the flooding of the fuel storage racks with unborated water will
not affect any accident initiator or mitigator. The proposed changes
will provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF
assemblies in the spent fuel pool storage racks. The effects of the
new fuel parameters of NGF assemblies on radiation shielding,
thermal-hydraulics, seismic/structural, and mechanical drop analyses
have been separately reviewed and were found to be acceptable.
The proposed changes will not alter the configuration of the
storage racks or their environment. The fuel racks will not be
operated outside of their design limits, and no additional loads
will be imposed on them. Therefore, these changes will not affect
fuel storage rack performance or reliability. No new equipment will
be introduced into the plant. The accuracies and response
characteristics of existing instrumentation will not be modified.
The proposed changes will not require, or result in, a change in
safety system operation, and will not affect any system interface
with the fuel storage racks. Fuel assembly placement will continue
to be controlled in accordance with approved fuel handling
procedures. The proposed changes in the Technical Specifications,
including surveillance requirements, will not add any significant
complexities or increase the possibility of operator error.
The proposed changes will not affect any barrier that mitigates
dose to the public, and will not result in a new release pathway
being created. The functions of equipment designed to control the
release of radioactive material will not be impacted, and no
mitigating actions described or assumed for an accident in the UFSAR
[Updated Final Safety Analyses Report] will be altered or prevented.
No assumptions previously made in evaluating the consequences of an
accident will need to be modified. Onsite dose will not be
increased, so the access of plant personnel to vital areas of the
plant will not be restricted and mitigating actions will not be
impeded.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
significantly increase either the probability or consequences of any
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 changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and
increasing the keff limit for the flooding of the fuel
storage racks with unborated water will not increase the probability
of an accident which was previously considered to be incredible nor
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident initiator previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to the configuration
of plant systems, or the manner in which they are operated.
Crediting soluble boron in the spent fuel pool storage rack
criticality analysis will have no effect on normal pool operation
and maintenance since soluble boron in Region 1 and Region 2 is
currently required by procedure. The crediting of soluble boron will
only result in increased sampling to verify compliance with the
minimum boron concentration required by the new TS 3/4.9.12. The
increased sampling ensures that a new kind of accident, boron
dilution in the spent fuel pool, will not be created.
The addition of large amounts of unborated water would be
necessary to reduce the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool
from the normal level of = 1,900 ppm [parts per million]
specified in new TS 3/4.9.12 to either 838 ppm (needed to
accommodate the most limiting fuel loading accident) or 447 ppm
(required for normal conditions). A small dilution flow might result
from a leak from the cooling system into the spent fuel pool.
Routine surveillance measurements of the soluble boron concentration
conducted every 7 days per the new TS 3/4.9.12 would readily detect
the reduction in concentration and provide sufficient time for
corrective action prior to exceeding the regulatory limits.
A high flow rate dilution accident involving continuous
operation of the Condensate Storage Pool pump could add a large
amount of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. However, multiple
alarms would alert the Control Room to the situation, including the
fuel pool high-level alarm, Fuel Handling Building sump high-level
alarm, and the Liquid Waste Management Trouble alarm. It is not
considered credible that either multiple alarms would fail or be
ignored by Operators, or that the spilling of large volumes of water
from the spent fuel pool would be observed by plant personnel who
would not take corrective actions. Moreover, if the soluble boron in
the spent fuel storage racks would be completely diluted, the fuel
in the racks will remain subcritical by a design margin of at least
0.005 [Delta]k, and so the keff of the fuel in the racks
will remain below 1.00.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and
increasing the keff limit for the flooding of the fuel
storage racks with unborated water, will not result in a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Detailed analysis with approved and benchmarked methods has
shown, with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, that the
neutron multiplication factor, keff, of the Region 1 and
Region 2 high-density spent fuel pool storage racks, loaded with
either Standard or NGF assemblies, and including biases, tolerances,
and uncertainties, is less than 1.00 with unborated water, and less
than 0.95 with 447 ppm of soluble boron credited. In addition, the
effects of abnormal and accident conditions have been evaluated to
demonstrate that under credible conditions the keff will
not exceed 0.95 with soluble boron credited. To ensure that the
margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained, and that
keff will be below 0.95, a new TS 3/4.9.12 will require a
soluble boron level of = 1,900 ppm in the spent fuel
pool. This is much greater than the required soluble boron
concentration of 447 ppm under normal conditions, and 838 ppm for
all credible accident conditions.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
[[Page 17230]]
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of Amendment Request: December 8, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated January 16 and 27, 2009, and February 20, 2009.
Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
current licensing basis to implement the alternate source term (AST)
through reanalysis of the radiological consequences of the Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14 accidents. The following technical
specifications (TS) are requested to be modified:
TS 1.1 is reduced from 0.4 percent of containment air weight per
day to 0.2 percent of containment air weight per day at peak design
containment pressure.
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.16.2 is revised to change the
specific activity of the reactor coolant from dose equivalent (DE) I-
131 less than or equal to 0.8 uCi/gm to less than or equal to 0.5 uCi/
gm.
SR 3.7.9.3 and SR 3.7.9.6 are revised to delete the word
``makeup.''
TS 3.7.13 is revised to change the specific activity of the
secondary coolant from less than or equal to 1.00 uCi/gm to less than
or equal to 0.1 uCi/gm DE I-131.
TS 5.5.15c is revised to change the maximum allowable containment
leakage rate, from 0.4 percent to 0.2 percent of containment air weight
per day.
TS 5.6.4 adds WCAP-16259-P-A ``Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Analyses'' to the
list of approved analytical methods.
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 results of the applicable radiological [design basis
accident] DBA re-evaluation demonstrated that, with the requested
changes, the dose consequences of these limiting events are within
the regulatory limits and guidance provided by the NRC in 10 CFR
50.67 and [Regulatory Guide] RG 1.183 [``Alternative Radiological
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Plants,'' July 2000] for the AST methodology. The AST is an input to
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of an accident and
does not by itself affect the plant response or the actual pathway
of the activity released from the fuel. It does, however, better
represent the physical characteristics of the release, such that
appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied.
The change from the original source term to the new proposed AST
is a change in the analysis method and assumptions and has no effect
on the probability of occurrence of previously analyzed accidents.
Use of an AST to analyze the dose effect of DBAs shows that
regulatory acceptance criteria for the new methodology continues to
be met. The dose consequences in the [control room] CR, the
exclusion area boundary, and the low population zone [LPZ] do not
exceed the regulatory limits provided by the NRC in 10 CFR 50.67 and
Regulatory Guide 1.183 for the AST methodology.
For the locked rotor [LR] event, an NRC approved methodology
RAVE (Westinghouse WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident
Analysis,'') is used to determine rods in [departure from nucleate
boiling] DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology provides an
input assumption to the radiological dose consequences calculations.
The use of the new methodology does not change the sequence or
progression of the accident scenario.
The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration that is
required to implement the AST analyses. The equipment affected by
the proposed changes is mitigating in nature and relied upon after
an accident has been initiated. The operation of various filtration
systems, the [residual heat removal] RHR and the [containment spray]
CS systems, including associated support systems, has been
considered in the evaluations of these proposed changes. The
operation of this equipment has been evaluated for emergency diesel
generator loading and fuel consumption. The evaluation demonstrated
that the diesel generator loading and fuel consumption do not exceed
the diesel generator criteria. While the operation of these systems
does change with the implementation of an AST, the affected systems
are not accident initiators, and application of the AST methodology
itself is not an initiator of a DBA.
The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
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 changes proposed in this [license amendment request] LAR
involve the use of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant
configuration that is required to implement the AST analyses. No new
or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes.
Although the proposed changes require modifications to the [control
room ventilation system] VNCR system, as well as modifications to
the RHR system and CS system, these changes will not create a new or
different kind of accident since they are related to system
capabilities that provide protection from accidents that have
already occurred. The operation of this equipment has been evaluated
for emergency diesel generator loading and fuel consumption. The
evaluation demonstrated that the diesel generator loading and fuel
consumption do not exceed the diesel generator criteria.
The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced that
could lead to different accidents. These changes do not alter the
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any
unique precursor mechanisms.
For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not alter the
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any
unique precursor mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes proposed in this license amendment involve the use
of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory acceptance
criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration
that is required to implement the AST analyses. Safety margins and
analytical conservatisms have been evaluated and have been found to
be acceptable. The analyzed events have been carefully selected and,
with plant modifications, no significant reduction of margin has
occurred and analyses adequately bound postulated event scenarios.
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the dose consequences
of DBAs at the exclusion
[[Page 17231]]
area and LPZ boundaries and in the CR are within the corresponding
acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The
margin of safety for the radiological consequences of these
accidents is provided by meeting the applicable regulatory limits,
which are set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable
margin of safety is inherent in these limits.
For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not reduce any
margins of safety for the LR event; 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: Antonio Fernandez, Senior Attorney, FPL
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin
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 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-258 (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 301-492-3524.\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 TWB-05 B32M, 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 address. 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
[[Page 17232]]
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 Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ten (10) 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 proprietary
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 ten
(10) 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 ten (10) 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 October 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
or 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 7th day of April 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting 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.
[[Page 17233]]
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.
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. E9-8455 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P