[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21164-21171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0059]
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, opportunity
to request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene, order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 9, 2013. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 10, 2013. Any potential party as defined in Sec.
2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
(SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request document
access by April 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-0059.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
[[Page 21165]]
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 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-2013-0059 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 any the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059.
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-2013-0059 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 that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely 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 that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely 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 (NRC) 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; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
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 ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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.
[[Page 21166]]
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, 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's 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 the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's 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 to
[[Page 21167]]
[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 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.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from information
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
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].
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML130040160.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Fermi 2 Plant Operating License, Technical
Specification (TS) Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' Section 3.4.10, ``RCS
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and Section 5.6, ``Reporting
Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel heatup and
cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with references to the
Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) at Fermi 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
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 GEH Nuclear Energy
Licensing Topical Report NEDC-33178P-A, Revision 1, for the
preparation of the Fermi 2 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 provides 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. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The change in methodology for calculating P/T limits and the
relocation of those limits to the PTLR does 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. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety. 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 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.
[[Page 21168]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
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: September 28, 2012, as
supplemented on February 15, 2013. A publicly available version is
available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML122860201 and ML13051A032,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would authorize an increase in the maximum power level from
3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3951 MWt. The requested change,
referred to as an extended power uprate (EPU), represents an increase
of approximately 12.4 percent above the current licensed thermal power
level.
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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power level does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the maximum authorized core
power level for PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station] from the
current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3514 megawatts thermal
(MWt) to 3951 MWt. Evaluations and analyses of the nuclear steam
supply system (NSSS) and balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the power uprate
were performed in accordance [with] the approaches described in:
NEDC-33004P-A (commonly called CLTR), Licensing Topical
Report Constant Pressure Power Uprate, Revision 4,
NEDC-32424P-A (commonly called ELTR1), Generic
Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power
Uprate, and
NEDC-32523P-A (commonly called ELTR2), Generic
Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power
Uprate.
The evaluations concluded that all plant components, as
modified, will continue to be capable of performing their design
function at the proposed uprated core power level.
The PBAPS licensing and design bases, including PBAPS accident
analyses, were also evaluated for the effect of the proposed power
increase. The evaluation concluded that the applicable analysis
acceptance criteria continue to be met.
Power level is not an initiator of any transient or accident; it
is used as an input assumption to equipment design and accident
analyses. The proposed change does not affect the release paths or
the frequency of release for any accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Structures,
systems, and components required to mitigate transients remain
capable of performing their design functions considering
radiological consequences associated with the effect of the proposed
EPU. The source terms used to evaluate the radiological consequences
were reviewed and were determined to bound [plant] operation at EPU
power levels. The results of EPU accident evaluations do not exceed
NRC-approved acceptance limits.
The spectrum of postulated accidents and transients were
reviewed and were shown to meet the regulatory criteria to which
PBAPS is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and core design,
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met.
Continued compliance with the SLMPCR and other SAFDLs is confirmed
on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by
the NRC.
Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were
evaluated at EPU conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and
radiation) and found to meet the acceptance criteria for allowable
stresses. Adequate overpressure margin is maintained with the
addition of one main steam safety valve.
Challenges to the containment were also evaluated. Containment
and its associated cooling system continue to meet applicable
regulatory requirements. The calculated post Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) suppression pool temperature decreases due to
modifications and methodology changes and remain acceptable.
Radiological releases were evaluated and found to be within the
regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term.'']
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions
they do not significantly increase the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The non-safety related Replacement Steam Dryer (RSD) must
function to maintain structural integrity and avoid generation of
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The RSD analyses demonstrate
the structural integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at EPU
conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power
level for PBAPS from the current maximum license thermal power of
3514 MWt to 3951 MWt. An evaluation of the equipment that could be
affected by the power uprate has been performed. No new accident
scenarios or equipment failure modes were identified. Due to the
voluntary elimination of the need for containment accident pressure
credit, the EPU safety analysis for primary containment response
credits a modification to the residual heat removal system which
involves a change in a safety-related equipment lineup. However,
this modification and new line up does not result in a new type of
accident. The full spectrum of accident considerations was evaluated
and no new or different kinds of accidents were identified. For
PBAPS, the standard evaluation methods outlined in CLTR, ELTR1, and
ELTR2 were applied to the capability of existing or modified safety-
related plant equipment. No new accidents or event precursors were
identified.
All [SSCs] previously required for the mitigation of a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended design functions with
the addition of one main steam safety valve. The addition of the
main steam safety valve does not adversely affect the main steam
system nor create an accident or malfunction of a different kind.
The proposed increase in power does not adversely affect safety-
related systems or components and does not challenge the performance
or integrity of any safety-related systems. The change does not
adversely affect any current system interfaces or create any new
interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a
different kind than was previously evaluated. Operating at the
proposed EPU power level does not create any new accident initiators
or precursors.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident
initiators and by maintaining their current functions they do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The new RSD does not have any new design functions. RSD analyses
demonstrate
[[Page 21169]]
the RSD will be capable of performing the design function of
maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, there are no new or
different kinds of accidents from those previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed increase in power does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the analyses of the proposed power increase, the
relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met without a
significant reduction in margins of safety. The analyses supporting
EPU have demonstrated that the PBAPS [SSCs] are capable of safely
performing at EPU conditions with the addition of one main steam
safety valve. The analyses identified and defined the major input
parameters to the [NSSS], analyzed NSSS design transients, and
evaluated the capabilities of the primary containment, NSSS fluid
systems, NSSS and [BOP], NSSS control systems and NSSS and BOP
components, as appropriate. Radiological consequences of design
basis events remain within regulatory limits and are not increased
significantly. The analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are
capable of achieving EPU conditions without significant reduction in
margins of safety, with the modifications discussed in this
application.
Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of
the power increase.
Calculated loads on SSCs important to safety have been shown to
remain within design allowables under EPU conditions for all design
basis event categories, including with the addition of one main
steam safety valve. Plant response to transients and accidents do
not result in exceeding acceptance criteria.
As appropriate, the evaluations that demonstrate acceptability
of EPU have been performed using methods that have either been
reviewed and approved by the NRC staff, or that are in compliance
with regulatory review guidance and standards established for
maintaining adequate margins of safety. These evaluations
demonstrate that there are no significant reductions in the margins
of safety.
Maximum power level is one of the inherent inputs that determine
the safe operating range defined by the accident analyses. The
Technical Specifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are conservative
with respect to the operating conditions defined by the Technical
Specifications. The engineering reviews performed for the constant
pressure [EPU] confirm that the accident analyses criteria are met
at the revised maximum allowable thermal power level of 3951 MWt.
Therefore, the adequacy of the revised Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe
operating range is also confirmed, and the increase in maximum
allowable power level does not involve a significant decrease in a
margin of safety.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of [containment accident pressure] credit do not change
the design functions within the applicable limits. The systems are
associated with accident or event response and do not significantly
affect accident initiators by maintaining their current functions
and they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident. The proposed Technical Specifications associated with
these modifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the bounds
of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The steam dryer is being replaced in order to ensure adequate
margin to the established structural requirements is maintained. The
new RSD does not have any new design functions and an analysis was
performed to confirm it will be capable of maintaining its
structural integrity. The power ascension test plan will verify that
the RSD conservatively meets the vibration and stress requirements.
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.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
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
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 of this notice 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)
[[Page 21170]]
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 identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of April 2013.
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....................................... The U.S. 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 the 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 the 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.
[[Page 21171]]
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. 2013-07957 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P