[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39521-39528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16269]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0142]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined 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: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
hearing and petition for leave to intervene, order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 2, 2012. A request for a
hearing or leave to intervene must be filed by September 4, 2012. Any
potential party as defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
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 July 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0142. You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0142. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[[Page 39522]]
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0142 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0142.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0142 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, 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 SUNSI.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined 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,
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 or
combined 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's 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
[[Page 39523]]
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, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the 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 email 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's
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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's 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's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email 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
[[Page 39524]]
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 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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
[email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 6, 2012. A publicly available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12076A062.
Description of amendment request: This license amendment request
contains Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI). The
proposed license amendments would (1) revise Brunswick Steam and
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b by
replacing AREVA Topical Report ANF-524(P)(A), ANF Critical Power
Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors with AREVA Topical Report ANP-
10307PA, Revision 0, ``AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling
Water Reactors,'' in the list of analytical methods that have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC for determining core operating limits,
(2) revise TS 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs,'' by incorporating revised
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values, and (3)
revise the license condition in Appendix B, ``Additional Conditions,''
of the facility operating licenses regarding an alternate method for
evaluating SLMCPR values.
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 probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed license amendments do not involve any plant modifications
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error.
As such, the proposed changes do not affect any postulated accident
precursors. Since no individual precursors of an accident are
affected, the proposed license amendments do not involve a
significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed
event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that
during normal operation and during anticipated operational
occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do
not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not
exceeded.
The proposed SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC-
approved methods discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP-10307PA,
Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors, June 2011. To support use of Topical Report ANP-10307PA,
Revision 0, by BSEP, Units 1 and 2, this NRC-approved analytical
method is being added to the list of NRC-approved analytical methods
identified in Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. Replacing AREVA
Topical Report ANF-524(P)(A), ANF Critical Power Methodology for
Boiling Water Reactors with the analytical methods described in
Topical Report ANP-10307PA in Technical Specification 5.6.5.b does
not alter the assumptions of accident analyses. Furthermore,
establishing a two recirculation loop SLMCPR value of > 1.08 and a
single recirculation loop SLMCPR value of > 1.11 ensures that the
acceptance criteria continues to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent
of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling),
while the revised license condition ensures that SLMCPR, setpoint,
and core operating limit values determined using the NRC-approved
AREVA methodologies remain applicable and the core operating limits
include margin sufficient to bound the effects of the K-factor
calculation issue described in AREVA Operability Assessment CR 2011-
2274, Revision 1.
Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the 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.
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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value calculated for two recirculation
loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to ensure at
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. SLMCPR
values are calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in
the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values and the AREVA methodology being
added to TS do not involve any new modes of plant operation or any
plant modifications and do not directly or indirectly affect the
failure modes of any plant systems or components.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different
[[Page 39525]]
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The 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 anticipated operational occurrences if
the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded.
Replacing the analytical methodology described in Topical Report
ANF-524(P)(A) with the methodology described in Topical Report ANP-
10307PA in the list of NRC-approved analytical methods identified in
Technical Specification 5.6.5.b, revision of the SLMCPR values in
Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 using NRC-approved methodology, and
confirmation that the SLMCPR, setpoint, and core operating limit
values remain applicable and the core operating limits include
margin sufficient to bound the effects of the K-factor calculation
issue described in AREVA Operability Assessment CR 2011-2274,
Revision 1, will ensure that the current level of fuel protection is
maintained by continuing to ensure that the fuel design safety
criterion is met (i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the rods
are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR Safety Limit is
not exceeded).
Meeting the fuel design criterion that at least 99.9 percent of
all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling and
establishing core operating limits based on the proposed SLMCPR
values, to ensure that the SLMCPR is not exceeded, ensures the
margin of safety required by the fuel design criterion is
maintained.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in 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, Senior Counsel--Legal
Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551,
Raleigh, NC 27602. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: April 27, 2012. A publicly
available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML121230354.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would: (1) Adopt a new methodology for preparation of the
reactor coolant system pressure-temperature (P-T) limits; (2) relocate
the P-T limits in the technical specifications (TS) to a new licensee-
controlled document, the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR);
and (3) modify the TSs to add references to the PTLR. Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, are currently licensed to
P-T limits that are applicable up to 32 effective full-power years
(EFPY). The PTLR would include P-T limits applicable to both 32 EFPY
and 54 EFPY.
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 the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the TS by replacing references to
existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and P-T
limit curves with references to the PTLR. The proposed amendment
also adopts the [NRC-approved] methodology of the GE Hitachi Nuclear
Energy Licensing Topical Report NEDC-33178P-A, Revision 1, for the
preparation of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 P-T limit curves. In 10 CFR
[Part] 50, Appendix G, requirements are established to protect the
integrity of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary in nuclear power
plants. Implementing the [NRC-approved] methodology for calculating
P-T limit curves and relocating those curves to the PTLR provide an
equivalent level of assurance that Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary
integrity will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR [Part] 50,
Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change in methodology for calculating P-T limits and the
relocation of those limits to the PTLR do not alter or involve any
design basis accident initiators. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary
integrity will continue to be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR
[Part] 50, Appendix G, and the assumed accident performance of plant
structures, systems and components will not be affected. These
changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the function of the Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary or its response during plant transients.
By calculating the P-T limits using [an NRC-approved] methodology,
adequate margins of safety relating to Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary integrity are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. There are no
changes to setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, and
the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for
accident mitigation are not affected.
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: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2012. A publicly available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12102A080.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Wolf Creek Generating Station's (WCGS's)
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,''
to exclude portions of the tube below the top of the steam generator
tubesheet from periodic steam generator tube inspections. In addition,
the proposed amendment would revise TS 5.6.10,
[[Page 39526]]
``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to remove reference to
previous interim alternate repair criteria and provide reporting
requirements specific to the permanent alternate repair criteria.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change
that alters the steam generator inspection criteria does not have a
detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system,
or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change
will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure
probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed
accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam
generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event, the steam line break (SLB), and
the feed line break (FLB) postulated accidents.
Addressing the SGTR event, the required structural integrity
margins of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint
over the H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with
cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the presence of the
tubesheet and constraint provided by the tube-to-tubesheet joint.
Tube burst cannot occur within the thickness of the tubesheet. The
tube-to-tubesheet joint constraint results from the hydraulic
expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and
tubesheet, from the differential pressure between the primary and
secondary side, and tubesheet deflection. The structural margins
against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases
for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam
Generator Tubes,'' and TS 5.5.9 are maintained for both normal and
postulated accident conditions.
The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The
proposed change maintains structural and leakage integrity of the
steam generator tubes consistent with the performance criteria in TS
5.5.9. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant
increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from tube degradation
below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by the tube-
to-tubesheet joint. Consequently, negligible normal operating
leakage is expected from degradation below the inspected depth
within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are
not affected by the primary to secondary leakage flow during the
event as primary to secondary leakage flow through a postulated tube
that has been pulled out of the tubesheet is essentially equivalent
to a severed tube. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in
a significant increase in the consequences of a SGTR.
The consequences of a SLB or FLB are also not significantly
affected by the proposed changes. The leakage analysis shows that
the primary-to-secondary leakage during a SLB/FLB event would be
less than or equal to that assumed in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report.
Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube degradation in the
tubesheet area during the limiting accident (i.e., SLB/FLB) is
limited by flow restrictions. These restrictions result from the
crack and tube-to-tubesheet contact pressures that provide a
restricted leakage path above the indications and also limit the
degree of potential crack face opening as compared to free span
indications.
The leakage factor of 2.50 for WCGS, for a postulated SLB/FLB,
has been calculated as shown in References 10, 15, and 19 [of the
license amendment request dated March 29, 2012]. Specifically, for
the condition monitoring (CM) assessment, the component of leakage
from the prior cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied
by a factor of 2.50 and added to the total leakage from any other
source and compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit.
For the operational assessment (OA), the difference in the leakage
between the allowable leakage and the accident induced leakage from
sources other than the tubesheet expansion region will be divided by
2.50 and compared to the observed operational leakage.
The probability of a SLB/FLB is unaffected by the potential
failure of a steam generator tube as the failure of the tube is not
an initiator for a SLB/FLB event. SLB/FLB leakage is limited by
leakage flow restrictions resulting from the leakage path above
potential cracks through the tube-to-tubesheet crevice. The leak
rate during all postulated accident conditions that model primary-
to-secondary leakage (including locked rotor and control rod
ejection) has been shown to remain within the accident analysis
assumptions for all axial and or circumferentially orientated cracks
occurring 15.21 inches below the top of the tubesheet. The accident
induced leak rate limit for WCGS is 1.0 gpm [gallon per minute]. The
TS 3.4.13, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Operational LEAKAGE,''
operational leak rate limit is 150 gpd [gallons per day] (0.1 gpm)
through any one steam generator. Consequently, accident leakage is
approximately 10 times the allowable leakage, if only one steam
generator is leaking. Using the limiting SLB/FLB overall leakage
factor of 2.50, accident induced leakage is less than 0.6 gpm, if
all 4 steam generators are leaking at 150 gpd at the beginning of
the accident. Therefore, significant margin exists between the
conservatively estimated accident induced leakage and the allowable
accident leakage (1.0 gpm).
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change alters the steam generator inspection and
reporting criteria. It does not introduce any new equipment, create
new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting
single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change alters the steam generator inspection and
reporting criteria. It maintains the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions.
NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 97-06, and RG 1.121, are used as the
bases in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth
methodology for determining that steam generator tube integrity
considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121
describes a method acceptable to the NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission] for meeting GDC [General Design Criterion] 14, ``Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant System
Design,'' GDC 31, ``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary,'' and GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary,'' by reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR.
RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions
for tube wall degradation, the probability and consequences of a
SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube
burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [Boiler and
Pressure Vessel] Code.
For axially-oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially-oriented cracking, the H* Analysis documented in
Section 3 [of the license amendment request dated March 29, 2012],
defines a length of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides
the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced
forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the
limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary to secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for
large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the
proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
[[Page 39527]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
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 email
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
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
after a determination on standing and need for access, 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
[[Page 39528]]
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 27th day of June 2012.
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. 2012-16269 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P