[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32509-32516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0190]
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) 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.
[[Page 32510]]
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 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-
[[Page 32511]]
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 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].
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 23, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.6 to add
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved topical report
(TR) EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA [Loss-of-
Coolant Accident] Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' to the
Core Operating Limits Report methodologies list. This change will allow
the use of the thermal-hydraulic computer analysis code S-RELAP5 for
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 realistic large-
break LOCA in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 safety
analyses. TR EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, was approved by the NRC on
April 9, 2003, for the application of the S-RELAP5 thermal-hydraulic
analysis computer code to FSAR Chapter 15 realistic large-break LOCA.
[[Page 32512]]
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 topical report has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for
use in determining core operating limits and for evaluation of large
break loss-of-coolant accidents. The core operating limits to be
developed using the new methodologies for HNP [Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1] will be established in accordance with
the applicable limitations as documented in the NRC Safety
Evaluation Report. In the April 9, 2003, NRC SE [safety evaluation],
the NRC concluded that the S-RELAP5 RLBLOCA [realistic large-break
loss-of-coolant accident] methodology is acceptable for referencing
in licensing applications in accordance with the stated limitations.
The proposed change enables the use of new methodology to re-
analyze a large break loss-of-coolant accident. It does not, by
itself, impact the current design bases. Revised analysis may either
result in continued conformance with design bases or may change the
design bases. If design basis changes result from a revised
analysis, the specific design changes will be evaluated in
accordance with HNP design change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any
plant structure, system, or component. Therefore, the probability of
occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not significantly
increased.
The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of
the fission product barriers during the analyzed accident, the
availability and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to
operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at
which these actions are initiated.
The proposed methodologies will ensure that the plant continues
to meet applicable design and safety analyses acceptance criteria.
The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment
used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. As a
result, no analysis assumptions are impacted and there are no
adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite
dose as a result of an accident. The proposed change does not affect
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. The
proposed change ensures that plant structures, systems, and
components are maintained consistent with the safety analysis and
licensing bases.
Therefore, this amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed
accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of
plant systems, structures, or components. No new or different
equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being
operated in a different manner. There is no change to the parameters
within which the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints that
initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a result, no new
failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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.
There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the
incorporation of this new topical report into the Technical
Specifications. If design basis changes result from a revised
analysis that uses these new methodologies, the specific design
changes will be evaluated in accordance with HNP design change
procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Any potential reduction in the margin
of safety would be evaluated for that specific design change.
Therefore, this amendment 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes revise the operating license and technical specifications (TSs)
to implement an increase of approximately 1.65% in rated thermal power
from the current licensed thermal power of 3458 megawatts thermal (MWt)
to 3515 MWt. The proposed changes are based on increased feedwater flow
measurement accuracy, which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron
International (formerly Caldon) CheckPIus Leading Edge Flow Meter
ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation. The proposed changes also
modify certain TS setpoints and channel surveillance requirements
associated with average power range monitor simulated thermal power.
Additionally, the proposed changes include a modification to the
standby liquid control system (SLCS), that allows operators to select
two pumps instead of three for the automatic start function on an
anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) signal.
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, with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes [other than those associated with the SLCS]
do not affect system design or operation and thus do not create any
new accident initiators or increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated. All accident mitigation systems will function
as designed, and all performance requirements for these systems have
been evaluated and were found acceptable. The SLCS performance
requirements will be met with completion of the SLCS modification
described in the proposed changes.
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 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 3515 MWt. Other analyses previously performed at the
current power level have either been
[[Page 32513]]
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. The anticipated
transient without scram event criteria will be met with completion
of the SLCS modification described in the proposed changes. 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 add test requirements to TS instrument
functions [that are changed by this license amendment and are]
related to those variables that have a significant safety function
to 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
significantly increased. 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.
The SLCS modification does not affect the probability of an
accident, as the control system is not an initiator in any accident.
The modification maintains all of the assumptions in the analyses of
events for which the system is designed. Thus, the response to these
events is unaffected.
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 [that create a new or different
accident than previously evaluated] 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 regarding instrument testing 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.
The SLCS system is not an initiator of any accidents.
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, or
that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and
standards.
The proposed changes add test requirements that 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. The SLCS modification maintains all of the
assumptions in the analyses of events for which the system is
designed. Thus, the response to these events is unaffected.
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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specifications to allow temporary
changes to the secondary containment boundary during shutdown
conditions. Specifically, the proposed change would allow the Reactor
Building secondary containment boundary associated with the Trunnion
Room to be relocated from the Trunnion Room outer wall and door to the
Reactor Building inner walls and penetrations located inside the
Trunnion Room.
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 proposed changes do not involve any modifications to any
structures, components, or systems that would affect the probability
of an accident previously evaluated in the Oyster Creek Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed
changes do not significantly increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The Secondary Containment structure and the [Standby Gas
Treatment System (SGTS)], and any component thereof, are not
accident initiators. No other accident initiator is affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
There are no changes or modifications in the function or
operation of the SGTS being proposed to temporarily relocate the
Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown
conditions. Therefore, changing the Secondary Containment boundary
for the Trunnion Room will not result in any change to the frequency
of an accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The malfunction of any portion of Secondary Containment,
including the SGTS, would have the same results and consequences
regardless of whether the Secondary Containment boundary is
maintained at the Trunnion Room door or inside the Trunnion Room.
Relocating the Secondary Containment boundary during Cold
Shutdown conditions will help to improve Secondary Containment
integrity. Secondary Containment integrity is maintained by the
single Trunnion Room door. The relocated Secondary Containment
boundary established inside the Trunnion Room will be more
substantial since the penetrations will be blocked and sealed. Less
air will be drawn into the Reactor Building during SGTS operation
and a larger negative pressure will be maintained in the Reactor
Building. As a result, better Secondary Containment response would
be expected during any postulated accidents or transients in this
configuration.
Since the proposed change to relocate the Secondary Containment
boundary will only be implemented when the plant is in a Cold
Shutdown condition, when a pipe break
[[Page 32514]]
accident is not credible and isolation of the Main Steam and
Feedwater Supply lines will be maintained by isolation of either the
inboard or outboard isolation valves or other engineered isolation
mechanisms/devices within Secondary Containment; any release from
the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV or any attached system will be
contained in the Reactor Building. Once the RPV head is removed, any
gaseous release due to fuel damage from any accident or transient
would be drawn into the Reactor Building and through the SGTS as
designed. The drop of a fuel bundle and postulated release of
fission product gases would be drawn into the Reactor Building and
through the SGTS as designed. Because the Secondary Containment will
be maintained under negative pressure (i.e., greater than -0.25''
water column) when required and the penetrations inside the Trunnion
Room will be blocked and sealed, all releases in the Reactor
Building, including in the RPV and Spent Fuel Pool, will be
contained within Secondary Containment and will not be released into
the Trunnion Room. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes
do 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 changes will not create the possibility for a new
or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve any modifications to
any structure, systems, or components that would create the
possibility of an accident. The Secondary Containment, SGTS[,] and
any related equipment important to safety will continue to operate
as designed. Component integrity is not challenged. The changes do
not result in more adverse conditions or result in any increase in
the challenges to safety systems. The systems affected by the
changes are used to mitigate the consequences of an accident that
would have already occurred. The proposed changes do not allow
reduction of the mitigative function of these systems. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
This temporary configuration change removes the Trunnion Room
outer wall and door as part of Secondary Containment during Cold
Shutdown and allows the Technical Specifications (TS) required
administrative controls for the Trunnion Room door to be relaxed.
Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained in accordance
with applicable TS requirements and any releases from the RPV or its
attached systems will be contained within Secondary Containment and
will not be released into the Trunnion Room. All releases within
Secondary Containment will be processed by the SGTS. This activity
does not change the design, function[,] or operation of any
structure, system, or component important to safety other than
removing the Trunnion Room as part of the Secondary Containment
boundary. Therefore, the proposed activity does not create a
possibility for an accident of a different type.
The Secondary Containment, with the exception of the SGTS, is a
passive system that cannot and will not result in any malfunction of
a structure, system, or component important to safety. No change to
the function or operation of the SGTS is being considered as a
result of the proposed change to temporarily relocate the Trunnion
Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions.
Changing the Secondary Containment boundary for the Trunnion Room
will not result in any malfunction to a structure, system, or
component important to safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not create a possibility for a malfunction of a structure, system,
or component important to safety with a different result than any
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.]
The Secondary Containment provides protection to the public by
containing any radioactive releases that result from transients or
accidents contained in the [Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station]
design bases. With the exception of the SGTS, the Secondary
Containment is a passive system that cannot and will not result in
any accident or transient evaluated in the UFSAR. No change to the
function or operation of the SGTS is being proposed when relocating
the Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold
Shutdown conditions.
The proposed changes to relocate the Trunnion Room Secondary
Containment boundary from the outer wall and door, to the inner
walls and penetrations inside the Trunnion Room during Cold Shutdown
conditions will not result in any change to the frequency of an
accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
TS administrative controls will be instituted in support of
relocating the Secondary Containment boundary and TS required
surveillance testing will be completed to ensure that Secondary
Containment integrity can be maintained in the modified
configuration within design parameters.
Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained as required,
and any release from the RPV or any attached system will be
contained in the Reactor Building. The Secondary Containment and
SGTS will continue to function as designed in the event of an
accident or transient that requires the Secondary Containment to act
as a fission product barrier to prevent a radioactive release.
The proposed changes do not adversely impact the operation of
any plant structure, system, or component important to safety. The
Secondary Containment and the SGTS will continue to function and
respond as designed. The proposed changes do not result in a
departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in
establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.
Therefore, based on the above information, 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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
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 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
[[Page 32515]]
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 1st day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................... Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for leave
to intervene, including order with instructions
for access requests.
10.................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing the
need for the information in order for the
potential party to participate meaningfully in
an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of
standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+
25 Answers to petition for intervention; + 7
requestor/petitioner reply).
[[Page 32516]]
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. 2010-13617 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P