[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50759-50766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19984]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0174]
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
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of license amendment request, opportunity to comment,
opportunity to request a hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 15, 2011. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 17, 2011. Any potential party as
defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
[[Page 50760]]
Regulations (10 CFR), 2.4 who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified
Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this
notice must request document access by August 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0174 in the subject line
of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form
will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web
site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0174. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-
492-3668; e-mail: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, Announcements and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine,
and have copied for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's
PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-0174.
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, NRC, 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 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 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; (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 in
an emergency situation, 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.
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the
NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If
a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
[[Page 50761]]
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, then 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 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 identification (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 the 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 the 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 the Electronic Information Exchange System,
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 the 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 1-866-672-7640. 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
[[Page 50762]]
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 the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, 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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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 (EGC), Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 7, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment revises the value of the single recirculation loop operation
(SLO) safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical
Specifications Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits].''
Specifically, the proposed change would replace the current SLO SLMCPR
requirement for QCNPS Unit 1 with a new SLMCPR requirement. This
proposed change does not affect the QCNPS Unit 1 two recirculation loop
operation SLMCPR or either of the SLMCPR values for Unit 2. This change
is needed to support the next cycle of operation (i.e., Cycle 22) for
QCNPS Unit 1 for cycle exposure greater than 4000 MWd/MT, which is
currently scheduled to occur in November 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC-
approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal,
transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed
change to revise the QCNPS Unit 1 SLO SLMCPR requirement
conservatively establishes the SLMCPR at the value for a core of all
SVEA-96 Optimal fuel, such that the fuel is protected during normal
operation and during plant transients or anticipated operational
occurrences (AOOs).
The proposed SLMCPR value for QCNPS Unit 1 does not increase the
probability of an evaluated accident. The change does not require
any physical plant modifications, physically affect any plant
components, or entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, no
individual precursors of an accident are affected.
The proposed change revises the SLO SLMCPR value for QCNPS Unit
1 to protect the fuel during normal operation as well as during
plant transients or AOOs. Operational limits will be established
based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not
violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion
(i.e., that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience
transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs) is met. Since
the proposed change does not affect operability of plant systems
designed to mitigate any consequences of accidents, the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated will not increase.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The proposed changes do not involve any plant configuration
modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The
proposed SLMCPR value does not result in the creation of any new
precursors to an accident. The proposed change to revise the QCNPS
Unit 1 SLO SLMCPR requirement assures that safety criteria are
maintained for QCNPS Unit 1, Cycle 22.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least
99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling
during normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not
violated. The proposed change will ensure the current level of fuel
protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that at least 99.9
percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during
normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not violated. The
proposed SLMCPR value was developed using NRC-approved methods.
Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the
proposed SLMCPR value to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated.
This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that
no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be in boiling
transition if the MCPR limit is not violated) is met.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 50763]]
Based upon the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no
significant hazards consideration is justified.
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
requested amendment 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: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN
50-454, STN 50-455, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County,
Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor
Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.'' The proposed change
reflects the installation of bypass test capability.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) provide plant protection and are
part of the accident mitigation response. The RTS and ESFAS
functions do not themselves act as a precursor or an initiator for
any transient or design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed
change does not significantly increase the probability of any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The structural and
functional integrity of the RTS and ESFAS, or any other plant
system, is unaffected. The proposed change does not alter or prevent
the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Surveillance
testing in the bypass condition will not cause any design or
analysis acceptance criteria to be exceeded.
Under the proposed change, the channel being tested may be
bypassed. The number of available channels with one channel in
bypass for testing will remain the same as the number of channels
available when testing in trip. The number of channels to trip will
be unchanged when testing in bypass while the number of channels to
trip is reduced to one when testing in trip. Although there may be
as light increase in the possibility that the failure of a channel
could prevent the actuation of a function (because testing in bypass
could result in two-out-of-two logic while testing in trip would
have resulted in one-out-of-two logic), testing in bypass will
reduce the vulnerability to inadvertent actuation of a function
while maintaining the required number of channels to trip. The
impact of using bypass test capability upon nuclear safety has been
previously evaluated by the NRC and determined to be acceptable in
WCAPs 14333-P-A, Revision 1, 15376-P-A, Revision 1, and 10271-P-A,
Revision 1. Thus, testing in bypass when all channels are operable
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Under the proposed change, the channel being tested may be
bypassed when another channel is concurrently inoperable and in a
tripped condition. As a result, with one channel in bypass and
another in trip leaves one-out-of-two operable channels to initiate
the protective function (if the initial logic is two-out-of-four) or
one-out-of-one operable channels to initiate the protective function
(if the initial logic was two-out-of-three). Thus, testing in bypass
with one channel inoperable does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Implementation of the bypass testing capability does not affect
the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for
mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of an
accident. Plant response as modeled in the safety analyses is
unaffected. Hence, the releases used as input to the dose
calculations are unchanged from those previously assumed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Surveillance testing in bypass does not affect accident
initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety
analyses. No new operating configuration is being imposed by the
surveillance testing in bypass that would create a new failure
scenario. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints
after the proposed change is implemented. In addition, no new
failure modes are being created for any plant equipment. The bypass
test instrumentation has been designed to applicable regulatory and
industry standards. Fault conditions, failure detection, reliability
and equipment qualification have been considered. The changes do not
result in the creation of any change to existing accident scenarios
nor does it create any new or different accident scenarios. The
types of accidents defined in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report] UFSAR continue to represent the credible spectrum of events
to be analyzed which determine safe plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analyses were changed or modified as a result of the
proposed TS change to reflect installed bypass test capability. The
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. Margins associated with the current safety
analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety
analyses remain bounding since their conclusions are not affected by
performing surveillance testing in bypass. The safety systems
credited in the safety analyses will continue to be available to
perform their mitigation functions.
Implementation of testing in bypass results in an overall
improvement in safety because the capability to test in bypass for
the analog channels will promote improved maintenance practices that
will provide a resultant reduction in the number of spurious reactor
trips and spurious actuation of safety equipment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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, VP & Deputy General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 18, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
change would revise Technical Specifications for the Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System
[[Page 50764]]
Instrumentation to allow the surveillance frequency for the
Westinghouse-type AR relays that are used as Solid State Protection
System (SSPS) slave relays or auxiliary relays to be expanded from
quarterly to every 18 months or refueling. Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Topical Report WCAP-13877-P-A Revision 2,
dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of Westinghouse Type AR
Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays,'' provides the details and results
that support the increased surveillance interval.
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 change to the Technical Specifications does not result in a
condition where the design, material, and construction standards
that are applicable to slave relays has been changed or degraded.
The change is to increase the allowable surveillance to a less
impacting 18 month interval. The standard for Westinghouse Plants
specifically required quarterly testing of slave relays in the Solid
State Protection System (SSPS) instrumentation that initiates proper
unit shutdown or engineered safety feature. The Solid State
Protective System (SSPS) actuates the Engineered Safety Features
Actuation Systems (ESFAS). Current surveillance requirements involve
testing the relays at power, with the attendant risk of inadvertent
actuation of the engineered safety features. In addition, the on-
line testing of slave relays required plant manipulation, abnormal
configurations, and removed from service various equipment making it
unavailable to perform its intended safety function. Generic Letter
93-05, ``Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce
Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation''
identified that relay testing could be performed on a ``staggered
test basis over a cycle and leave the tests carrying highest risk to
a refueling outage or other cold shutdown.''
The SSPS can initiate safeguard functions to maintain the
reactor plant in a safe shutdown condition. Safeguard actuation
occurs when a train of logic senses the need for any of the
particular safeguards actions. Safeguard actuation is determined by
the SSPS in the same way as the need for a reactor trip. When the
required logic is present, one or more master relays are energized.
Each master relay typically has several slave relays energized by
the master relay. The slave relays operate the contacts necessary to
open and close valves, shift control room air ventilation line ups,
start diesel generators, etc. Each safeguards train actuates a
physically and electrically separate train of pumps and valves, with
a dedicated diesel generator for electrical power. Failure of one
component of a train (or the entire train) does not prevent
sufficient action by the other train. The SSPS actuated functions
are: Safety Injection (causes a reactor trip, various pumps and
coolers to start, and various valves to open and close), Containment
Isolation (closes valves to isolate the Reactor Building interior
from the environment), Steam isolation (close all three main steam
isolation valves), and Reactor Building Spray (each train provides
flow).
Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report
WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of
Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the
details and results that support the increased surveillance
interval. The same ESFAS instrumentation is being used and the same
ESFAS system reliability is expected. The proposed change will not
modify any system interface or function; therefore, will not
increase the likelihood of an accident. The proposed activity will
not change, degrade or prevent the performance of any accident
mitigation systems or alter any assumptions previously made in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident described in
the FSAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in any
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.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Increasing
the surveillance interval does not alter the performance of the
ESFAS mitigation systems assumed in the plant safety analysis nor
will it create any new accident initiators or scenarios.
Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report
WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of
Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the
details and results that support the increased surveillance
interval. Current surveillance requirements involve testing the
relays at power, with the attendant risk of inadvertent actuation of
the engineered safety features. In addition, the on-line testing of
slave relays required plant manipulation, abnormal configurations,
and removed from service various equipment making it unavailable to
perform its intended safety function. Generic Letter 93-05, ``Line-
Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance
Requirements for Testing During Power Operation'' identified that
relay testing could be performed on a ``staggered test basis over a
cycle and leave the tests carrying highest risk to a refueling
outage or other cold shutdown.'' Each safeguards train actuates a
physically and electrically separate train of pumps and valves with
a dedicated diesel generator for electrical power. Failure of one
component of a train (or the entire train) does not prevent
sufficient action by the other train. The SSPS actuated functions
are: Safety Injection (causes a reactor trip, various pumps and
coolers to start, and various valves to open and close), Containment
Isolation (closes valves to isolate the Reactor Building interior
from the environment), Steam isolation (close all three main steam
isolation valves), and Reactor Building spray (Each train provides
flow). The current SSPS functions are a potential challenge to the
plant when tested at power, in that isolation or activation of major
components place the unit in an unfavorable conditions that are
corrected by initiating Abnormal Operating Procedures. The change
will increase the allowable surveillance to a less impacting 18
month interval therefore allowing testing to be completed during a
time period where activation would have less of an effect on
operation. Implementation of the proposed amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously
evaluated within the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change to the Technical Specifications increasing the
surveillance interval does not result or involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC
(Westinghouse) topical report WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August
2000, ``Reliability Assessment of Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used
as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the details and results that support
the increased surveillance interval. The periodic slave relay
functional verification should be relaxed because of the
demonstrated high reliability of the relay and its insensitivity to
any short term wear or aging effects. The current SSPS functions are
a potential challenge to the plant when surveillance tested at
power, in that isolation or activation of major components places
the unit in an unfavorable condition that is corrected by initiating
Abnormal Operating Procedures. The change will increase the
allowable surveillance to a less impacting 18 month interval
therefore allowing testing to be completed during a time period
where activation would have less of an effect on operation.
Implementation of the proposed amendment does not result in a
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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
[[Page 50765]]
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN
50-454, STN 50-455, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County,
Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
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 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); and
(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
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.
[[Page 50766]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 2011.
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).
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. 2011-19984 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P