[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35889-35896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17243]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0270]
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), section 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
[[Page 35890]]
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking
and Directives Branch (RDB), 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. Written comments may also
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. 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.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
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.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
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 an exemption 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
should 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
[[Page 35891]]
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 using the agency's adjudicatory e-
filing system 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 toll-free help line
number is 1-866-672-7640. A person filing electronically may also seek
assistance by sending an e-mail to the NRC electronic filing Help Desk
at [email protected].
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service.
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 request and/
or petition 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, the 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 electronically 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].
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: May 28, 2009.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.7.6.k, Steam
Generator (SG) Program, to exclude a portion of the tubes below the top
of the SG tube sheet from periodic SG tube inspections. The change also
adds additional reporting criteria to TS 6.8.1.7, Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report. This permanent change is supported by Westinghouse
Electric Company, LLC Topical Report WCAP-17071-P, ``H*: Alternate
Repair Criteria for the Tubesheet Expansion Region in Steam Generators
with Hydraulically Expanded Tubes (Model F).''
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change
that alters the steam generator (SG) inspection and reporting
criteria does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any
plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed
event. The proposed change will not alter the operation of, or
otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment
that initiates an analyzed accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the SG tube
inspection and repair criteria are the steam generator tube rupture
(SGTR) event, the steam line break (SLB), and the feed line break
(FLB) postulated accidents.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins
of the SG tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H* distance
will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks within the
tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the presence of
the tubesheet and the tube-to-tubesheet joint. Tube burst cannot
occur within the thickness of the tubesheet. The tube-to-tubesheet
joint constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process,
thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from
the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side,
and tubesheet rotation. Based on this design, the structural margins
against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases
for Plugging Degraded [pressurized-water reactor] PWR Steam
Generator Tubes,'' and Technical Specification 6.7.6.k, are
maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions.
The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The
proposed change maintains structural and leakage integrity of the SG
tubes consistent with the performance criteria of Technical
Specification 6.7.6.k. Therefore, the proposed change results in no
significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR
accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from tube degradation
below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by the tube-
to-tubesheet crevice. Consequently, negligible normal operating
leakage is expected from degradation below the inspected depth
within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are
not affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow during the
event as primary-to-
[[Page 35892]]
secondary leakage flow through a postulated tube that has been
pulled out of the tubesheet is essentially equivalent to a severed
tube. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a
significant increase in the consequences of a SGTR.
The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure
of a steam generator tube as the failure of tube is not an initiator
for a SLB event.
The leakage factor of 2.02 for Seabrook Station, for a
postulated SLB/FLB, has been calculated as shown in Table 9-7 of
[WCAP-17071-P]. However, NextEra will apply a factor of 2.03 to the
normal operating leakage associated with the tubesheet expansion
region in the condition monitoring (CM) and operational assessment
(OA). The leakage factor of 2.03 is a bounding value for all SGs,
both hot and cold legs, in Table 9-7 of [WCAP-17071-P]. Through
application of the limited tubesheet inspection scope, the existing
operating leakage limit provides assurance that excessive leakage
(i.e., greater than accident analysis assumptions) will not occur.
The assumed accident induced leak rate is 500 gallons per day (gpd)
during a postulated steam line break in the faulted loop. Using the
limiting leak rate factor of 2.03, this corresponds to an acceptable
level of operational leakage of 246 gpd. Therefore, the technical
specification leak rate limit of 150 gpd provides significant added
margin against the 500 gpd accident analysis leak rate assumption.
No leakage factor will be applied to the locked rotor or control
rod ejection transients due to their short duration.
For the CM assessment, the component of leakage from the prior
cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of
2.03 and added to the total leakage from any other source and
compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the
OA, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and
the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet
expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and compared to the
observed operational leakage.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection
and reporting criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create
new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting
single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident
analyses. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed change limits the portion of the tube that must be
inspected and repaired to the portion of the tube within the
tubesheet necessary to maintain structural and leakage integrity
under both normal and accident conditions. WCAP-17071-P identifies
the specific inspection depth below which any type tube degradation
[is] shown to have no impact on the performance criteria in [Nuclear
Energy Institute] NEI 97-06 Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program
Guidelines.''
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection
and reporting criteria maintains the required structural margins of
the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. Nuclear Energy
Institute 97-06, ``Steam Generator Program Guidelines,'' and NRC
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam
Generator Tubes,'' are used as the bases in the development of the
limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that
SG tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable
limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for
meeting General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, ``Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant System Design,'' GDC 31,
``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' and
GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' by
reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR. RG 1.121
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube
wall degradation, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are
reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that
are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking, Westinghouse WCAP-17071-P
defines a length of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides
the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced
forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the
limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage as described in
WCAP-17071-P shows that significant margin exists between an
acceptable level of leakage during normal operating conditions (246
gpd) that ensures meeting the SLB accident-induced leakage
assumption and the technical specification leakage limit of 150 gpd.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any 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: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: June 2, 2009.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude portions of the tube below the top
of the steam generator tubesheet from periodic SG tube inspections. In
addition, this amendment request proposes to revise TS 5.6.10, ``Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to provide reporting requirements
specific to the permanent alternate repair criteria. This permanent
change is supported by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, WCAP-17071-P,
``H*: Alternate Repair Criteria for the Tubesheet Expansion Region in
Steam Generators with Hydraulically Expanded Tubes (Model F).''
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 previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change
that alters the steam generator inspection criteria does not have a
detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system,
or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change
will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure
probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed
accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam
generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event and the feedline break (FLB)
postulated accidents.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins
of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over
the H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with
cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the presence of the
tubesheet and constraint provided by the tube-to-tubesheet joint.
Tube burst cannot occur within the thickness of the tubesheet. The
tube-to-tubesheet joint constraint results from the hydraulic
expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and
tubesheet, from the differential pressure between the
[[Page 35893]]
primary and secondary side, and tubesheet deflection. Based on this
design, the structural margins against burst, as discussed in
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,'' and TS 5.5.9
are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions.
The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The
proposed change maintains structural and leakage integrity of the
steam generator tubes consistent with the performance criteria in TS
5.5.9. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant
increase in the probability of the occurrence of [an] SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from tube degradation
below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by the tube-
to-tubesheet joint. Consequently, negligible normal operating
leakage is expected from degradation below the inspected depth
within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are
not affected by the primary to secondary leakage flow during the
event as primary to secondary leakage flow through a postulated tube
that has been pulled out of the tubesheet is essentially equivalent
to a severed tube. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in
a significant increase in the consequences of [an] SGTR.
The probability of [an] SLB [steam line break] is unaffected by
the potential failure of a steam generator tube as the failure of
the tube is not an initiator for [an] SLB event.
The leakage factor of 2.03 for WCGS, for a postulated SLB/FLB,
has been calculated as shown in Table 9-7 of WCAP-17071-P and will
be applied to the normal operating leakage associated with the
tubesheet expansion region in the condition monitoring (CM) and
operational assessment (OA). The leakage factor of 2.03 is a
bounding value for all steam generators, both hot and cold legs, in
Table 9-7 of [WCAP-17071-P]. Through application of the limited
tubesheet inspection scope, the existing operating leakage limit
provides assurance that excessive leakage (i.e., greater than
accident analysis assumptions) will not occur. The accident induced
leak rate limit for WCGS is 1.0 gpm [gallons per minute]. The TS
3.4.13, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Operational LEAKAGE,''
operational leak rate limit is 150 gpd [gallons per day] (0.1 gpm)
through any one steam generator. Consequently, accident leakage is
approximately 10 times the allowable leakage, if only one steam
generator is leaking. Using [an] SLB/FLB overall leakage factor of
2.03, accident induced leakage is approximately 0.5 gpm, if all 4
steam generators are leaking at 150 gpd at the beginning of the
accident. Therefore, significant margin exists between the
conservatively estimated accident induced leakage and the allowable
accident leakage (1.0 gpm).
No leakage factor will be applied to the locked rotor or control
rod ejection transients due to their short duration.
For the CM assessment, the component of leakage from the prior
cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of
2.03 and added to the total leakage from any other source and
compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the
OA, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and
the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet
expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and compared to the
observed operational leakage.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection
and reporting criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create
new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting
single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change defines the portion of the tube that must be
inspected and repaired. WCAP-17071-P identifies the specific
inspection depth below which any type tube degradation shown to have
no impact on the performance criteria in NEI [Nuclear Energy
Institute] 97-06, Revision 2.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection
and reporting criteria maintains the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions.
NEI 97-06, Revision 2, and RG 1.121, are used as the bases in the
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method
acceptable to the NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] for
meeting GDC [General Design Criterion] 14, ``Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant System Design,'' GDC
31, ``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,''
and GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' by
reducing the probability and consequences of [an] SGTR. RG 1.121
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube
wall degradation the probability and consequences of [an] SGTR are
reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that
are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
For axially-oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially-oriented cracking, WCAP-17071-P, defines a length
of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides the necessary
resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with
applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot
and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary to secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. Using the methodology for determining leakage as
described in WCAP-17071-P, it is shown that significant margin
exists between conservatively estimated accident induced leakage and
the allowable accident leakage (1.0 gpm) if all four steam
generators are assumed to be leaking at the TS leakage limit at the
beginning of the design basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
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).
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts
2 and 73. The intent of this order is to make those requirements more
specific to this proceeding, but nothing in this order is intended to
conflict with those regulations.
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
[[Page 35894]]
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. Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.22(b), no person may have access to SGI
without first being determined to be trustworthy and reliable based on
a background check. Accordingly, if the requested information is for
SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,'' and
Form FD-258 (fingerprint card)--completed by any individual who would
have access to SGI if the request is granted--must be submitted. For
Form SF-85, the requestor(s) should only complete sections 1-11, the
certification and the authorization for release. 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 form must be signed in original ink, accompanied by
a check or money order payable in the amount of $200.00 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. Office of Administration, Security Processing
Unit, Mail Stop TWB-05 B32M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which
includes fingerprinting as part of a Federal Bureau of Investigation
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 adjudicate a specific contention in
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, or
education) to effectively utilize 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 in accordance with
10 CFR 73.22(b). The NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an
inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection
systems meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. 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
[[Page 35895]]
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 10 CFR 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 15th day of July 2009.
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 35896]]
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. E9-17243 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P