[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26287-26293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10820]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0168]
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order
Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
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 to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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).
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(c), 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, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), 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
[[Page 26288]]
Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB 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 requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, 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 (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at (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
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
[[Page 26289]]
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
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, or the presiding officer. Participants
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: January 27, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise the Operating License and Technical
Specifications (TS) to implement an increase of approximately 1.65
percent in rated thermal power from the current licensed thermal power
(CLTP) of 3,489 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,546 MWt.
The proposed changes are based on increased feedwater (FW) flow
measurement accuracy, which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron
International (formerly Caldon) CheckPlusTM Leading Edge
Flow Meter (LEFM) ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation. LEFM
instrumentation is currently installed in LaSalle County Station
(LaSalle), Unit 1 and will be installed in LaSalle, Unit 2 in refueling
outage L2R13, currently scheduled to complete in March 2011.
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 reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed
uprate conditions included all components and systems that could be
affected by this change. All systems will function as designed, and
all performance requirements for these systems have been evaluated
and were found acceptable.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural
failure of these components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their
intended design functions. Thus, there is no increase in the
probability of a failure of these components. The safety relief
valves and containment isolation valves meet design sizing
requirements at the uprated power level. Because the integrity of
the plant will not be affected by operation at
[[Page 26290]]
the uprated condition, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has
concluded that all structures, systems, and components required to
mitigate a transient remain capable of fulfilling their intended
functions.
A majority of the current safety analyses remain applicable,
since they were performed at power levels that bound operation at a
core power of 3546 MWt. Other analyses previously performed at the
current power level have either been evaluated or re-performed for
the increased power level. The results demonstrate that acceptance
criteria of the applicable analyses continue to be met at the
uprated conditions. As such, all applicable accident analyses
continue to comply with the relevant event acceptance criteria. The
analyses performed to assess the effects of mass and energy releases
remain valid. The source terms used to assess radiological
consequences have been reviewed and determined to bound operation at
the uprated condition.
The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS
instrument function ensure that instruments will function as
required to initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating
systems at the point assumed in the applicable safety analysis.
Surveillance tests are not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As such, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not affected. The added test requirements ensure that
the systems and components required by the TS are capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse
effects on any safety-related system or component and do not
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS
instrument function do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed, nor will there be a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation). The change does not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis, but ensures that the instruments behave as
assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change is consistent
with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation at the uprated power condition does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Analyses of the primary
fission product barriers have concluded that relevant design
criteria remain satisfied, both from the standpoint of the integrity
of the primary fission product barrier, and from the standpoint of
compliance with the required acceptance criteria. As appropriate,
all evaluations have been performed using methods that have either
been reviewed or approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), or that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and
standards.
The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS
instrument function establish instrument performance criteria in TS
that are currently required by plant procedures. The testing methods
and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components,
specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives
approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in
the plant licensing basis including the updated final safety
analysis report. There is no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in the plant licensing basis because no change
is made to the accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP),
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2009.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment requests approval for application of leak-before-break (LBB)
methodology to piping systems attached to the reactor coolant pressure
boundary. No Technical Specification changes are requested.
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.
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses. The design of
the protection systems will be unaffected. The reactor protection
system and engineered safety feature actuation system will continue
to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. All
design, material, and construction standards that were applicable
prior to the request are maintained.
For the PINGP, the bounding accident for pipe breaks is a Large
Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA). Since the application of
the LBB Analysis verifies the integrity of the piping attached to
the reactor coolant system, the probability of a previously
evaluated accident is not increased. The consequences of a LBLOCA
have been previously evaluated and found to be acceptable. The
application of the LBB Analysis will cause no change in the dose
analysis associated with a LBLOCA, and therefore, does not affect
the consequences of an accident.
The proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or change
any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations
in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
systems, structures, and components previously required for the
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any
safety related systems or components and does not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety related system. Further,
there are no changes in the method by which any safety-related plant
system performs its safety function. This amendment will not affect
the normal method of power operation or change any operating
parameters.
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 proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design functions during and
following accident conditions. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. The
proposed amendment request does not involve a change to any of these
barriers.
[[Page 26291]]
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the
margin of safety that exists in the present PINGP Technical
Specifications or USAR. The operability requirements of the
Technical Specifications are consistent with the initial condition
assumptions of the safety analyses. The proposed change does not
affect any Technical Specification Action statement requirements.
This proposed amendment uses LBB technology combined with
leakage monitoring to show that it is acceptable to exclude the
dynamic effects associated with postulated pipe ruptures from the
licensing basis for the systems evaluated that are attached to the
[reactor coolant system] RCS. The enclosed analysis demonstrates
that the LBB margins discussed in NUREG-1061 Volume 3 are satisfied.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: December 28, 2009.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would increase the licensed rated thermal power (RTP) as a
result of a measurement uncertainly recapture (MUR) power uprate (PU).
The proposed change would increase the licensed RTP level by 1.64
percent from 1650 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1677 MWt for both units.
The request is based on reduced uncertainty in the RTP measurement
achieved by installation of a Caldon Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM)
CheckplusTM System used to measure feedwater flow and
temperature.
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 change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
There are no changes as a result of the MUR PU to the design or
operation of the plant that could affect system, component, or
accident mitigative functions. All systems and components will
function as designed and the applicable performance requirements
have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
The reduction in power measurement uncertainty allows for the
accident and transient safety analyses to continue to be used
without modification. This is because the preceding safety analyses
were performed or evaluated at either 102 percent of 1650 MWt or
higher. Those accidents or transients that were reanalyzed for MUR
concluded that the existing analyses remain bounding and the
conclusions presented in the Updated Safety Analysis Report remain
valid.
Analyses at these power levels support a core power level of
1677 MWt with a measurement uncertainty of 0.36 percent.
Radiological consequences were performed at 102 percent of 1650 MWt
(or higher) and continue to be bounding.
The primary loop components were evaluated for the effects of
MUR PU conditions. These analyses also demonstrate the components
will continue to perform their intended design functions.
All of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) systems will
continue to perform their intended design functions during normal
and accident conditions. The auxiliary systems and components
continue to comply with the applicable structural limits and will
continue to perform their intended design functions. The NSSS/
Balance of Plant interface systems were evaluated and will continue
to perform their intended design functions. Plant electrical
equipment was also evaluated and will continue to perform within
their design ratings.
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 change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The LEFM
has been analyzed, and system failures will not adversely affect any
safety-related system or any structures, systems or components
required for transient mitigation. Structures, systems and
components previously required for mitigation of an event remain
capable of fulfilling their intended function at the uprated power
level. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-
related systems or components and does not challenge the performance
or integrity of any safety-related system.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current system
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an
accident or malfunction of a different kind than previously
evaluated. Operating at the proposed RTP does not create any new
accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded
by the current accident analyses of record or recent evaluations
demonstrating that applicable criteria are still met with the
proposed changes.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Operation at the 1677 MWt core power does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The current accident
analyses have been previously performed with a 2-percent power
measurement uncertainty or at a core power bounding the 1677 MWt.
System and component analyses have been completed at operating
conditions that envelop the MUR uprated operating conditions.
Analyses of the primary fission product barriers at uprated core
powers have concluded that all relevant plant operating conditions
remain satisfied in regard to integrity and compliance with the
regulatory acceptance criteria. Evaluations have been reviewed and
approved by the NRC or are in compliance with applicable regulatory
review guidance and standards.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP),
Goodhue County, Minnesota
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to
[[Page 26292]]
petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such
access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to participate
as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible
contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted
later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a
showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request
could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 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\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1);
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention;
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason
or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2010.
For the Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................... Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for leave
to intervene, including order with instructions
for access requests.
[[Page 26293]]
10.................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing the
need for the information in order for the
potential party to participate meaningfully in
an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of
standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7
requestor/petitioner reply).
20.................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe standing
can be established and shows need for SUNSI.
(NRC staff also informs any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information.) If NRC staff makes the
finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of
standing, NRC staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents).
25.................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no likelihood
of standing, the deadline for requestor/
petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to
reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC
staff files copy of access determination with
the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
Judge or other designated officer, as
appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need'' for
SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30.................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file motion
for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to
file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A..................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer
or other designated officer decision on motion
for protective order for access to sensitive
information (including schedule for providing
access and submission of contentions) or
decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent
with decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28................ Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing all
other contentions (as established in the notice
of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
that later deadline.
A + 53................ (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions
whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60................ (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply
to answers.
>A + 60............... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-10820 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P