[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32760-32767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0113]
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2; and Wolf Creek Generating Station. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by July 7, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by August 5, 2014. Any potential party as defined in
Sec. 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by June 16, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0113. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0113 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0113.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
[[Page 32761]]
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-2014-0113 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 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 NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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.
III. 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
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's 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 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/
[[Page 32762]]
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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC'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
ten (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/getting-started.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'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 NRC'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 public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[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
[[Page 32763]]
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 three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
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].
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13357A749.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth
in the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule.
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 proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature and does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The change does not alter accident analysis assumptions,
add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature and does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature and does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Plant safety margins are
established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical
specifications and no modifications have been made to these plant
characteristics due to the proposed change. In addition, the
milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no
substantive impact because other measures have been taken which
provide adequate protection during this period of time.
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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, LA 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: November 1, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13316B107, ML13316B109, and
ML13316B110.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment includes changes to the NMP2 Technical Specifications (TSs)
necessary to: (1) Implement the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit
Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) expanded operating domain; (2) change the
stability solution to Detect and Suppress Solution--Confirmation
Density (DSS-CD); (3) use the TRACG04 analysis code; (4) increase the
isotopic enrichment of boron-10 in the sodium pentaborate solution
utilized in the Standby Liquid Control System (SLS); and (5) increase
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two
recirculation loops in operation.
The following is a list of the proposed changes to the NMP2 TSs:
Revise Safety Limit (SL) 2.1.1.2 by increasing the SLMCPR
for two recirculation loops in operation from >=1.07 to >=1.09.
Revise the acceptance criterion in TS 3.1.7, ``Standby
Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.7.7 by
increasing the discharge pressure from >=1,327 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig) to >=1,335 psig.
Revise the acceptance criterion in TS SR 3.1.7.10 by
increasing the sodium pentaborate boron-10 enrichment requirement from
>=25 atom percent to >=92 atom percent, and make a corresponding change
in TS Figure 3.1.7-1, ``Sodium Pentaborate Solution Volume/
Concentration Requirements.''
Revise TS Figure 3.1.7-1 to account for the decrease in
the minimum volume of the SLS tank from 4,558.6 gallons and 4,288
gallons at sodium pentaborate concentrations of 13.6% and 14.4%,
respectively, to 1,600 gallons and 1,530 gallons at sodium pentaborate
concentrations of 13.6% and 14.4%, respectively.
Change the Required Actions for Condition F of TS 3.3.1.1,
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation.''
Change Condition G of TS 3.3.1.1.
[[Page 32764]]
Add new Conditions J and K to TS 3.3.1.1.
Correct an editorial error in Note 3 to TS SR 3.3.1.1.13
(i.e., ``ORRM'' is changed to ``OPRM'' [Oscillation Power Range
Monitor]).
Eliminate TS SR 3.3.1.1.16 and references to it in TS
Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation.''
Change the allowable value (AV) for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1,
Function 2.b, Average Power Range Monitor (APRM)--Flow Biased Simulated
Thermal Power (STP)--Upscale from ``<=0.55W + 60.5% [Rated Thermal
Power] RTP and <=115.5% RTP'' to ``<=0.61W + 63.4% RTP and <=115.5%
RTP.''
Add a new note to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, Function 2.b, that
requires the Flow Biased Simulated Thermal Power--Upscale scram
setpoint to be reset to the values defined by the Core Operating Limits
Report (COLR) to implement the Automated Backup Stability Protection
(BSP) Scram Region in accordance with Required Action F.2.1 of TS
3.3.1.1.
Add a new note to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, Function 2.e,
Oscillation Power Range Monitor (OPRM)--Upscale to denote that
following implementation of DSS-CD, DSS-CD is not required to be armed
while in the DSS-CD Armed Region during the first reactor startup and
during the first controlled shutdown that passes completely through the
DSS-CD Armed Region. However, DSS-CD is considered operable and capable
of automatically arming for operation at recirculation drive flow rates
above the DSS-CD Armed Region.
Change the mode of applicability for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1,
Function 2.e, OPRM-Upscale from Mode 1 to >=18% RTP.
Change the allowable value for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1,
Function 2.e, from ``As specified in the COLR'' to ``NA [not
applicable].''
Add a prohibition to TS Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating,'' that prohibits
operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA)
domain or MELLLA+ expanded operating domain as defined in the COLR when
in operation with a single recirculation loop.
Add Required Action B.2 to TS 3.4.1 to identify that
intentional operation in the MELLLA domain or MELLLA+ domain as defined
in the COLR is prohibited when a recirculation loop is declared ``not
in operation'' due to a recirculation loop flow mismatch not within
limits.
Revise TS 5.6.5.a.4 to replace ``Reactor Protection System
Instrumentation Setpoint for the OPRM--Upscale Function Allowable Value
for Specification 3.3.1.1'' with ``The Manual Backup Stability
Protection (BSP) Scram Region (Region I), the Manual BSP Controlled
Entry Region (Region II), the modified APRM Simulated Thermal Power--
High setpoints used in the OPRM (Function 2.e), Automated BSP Scram
Region, and the BSP Boundary for Specification 3.3.1.1.''
Add TS 5.6.8, ``OPRM Report,'' to define the contents of
the report required by new Required Action F.2.2 of TS 3.3.1.1.
The NRC approval of the requested operating domain expansion will
allow NMP2 to implement operational changes that will increase
operational flexibility for power maneuvering, compensate for fuel
depletion, and maintain efficient power distribution in the reactor
core without the need for more frequent rod pattern changes. MELLLA+
supports operation of NMP2 at Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) of
3,988 Megawatts--Thermal (MWth) with core flow as low as 85%
of rated core flow. By operating in the MELLLA+ domain, a significantly
lower number of control rod movements will be required than in the
present operating domain. This represents a significant improvement in
operating flexibility. It also provides safer operation, because
reducing the number of control rod manipulations: (a) Minimizes the
likelihood of fuel failures, and (b) reduces the likelihood of
accidents initiated by reactor maneuvers required to achieve an
operating condition where control rods can be withdrawn.
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) Will the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis
Accidents occurring is not affected by implementing the MELLLA+
operating domain and DSS-CD stability solution, because NMP2
continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria
established for plant equipment. A SLS failure is not a precursor of
any previously evaluated accident in the NMP2 USAR [updated safety
analysis report]. The increase to the SLMCPR for two recirculation
loops in operation does not increase the probability of an evaluated
accident. Consequently, there is no change in the probability of a
[***] previously evaluated accident.
The spectrum of postulated transients was investigated and shown
to remain within the NRC approved acceptance limits. Fuel integrity
is maintained by meeting existing design and regulatory limits.
Further, a probabilistic risk assessment demonstrates that the
calculated core damage frequency and the large early release
frequency do not significantly change due to operation in the
MELLLA+ domain.
Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were
evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions (pressure,
temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their
acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin.
Challenges to the containment were evaluated and the containment
and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the current
licensing basis. The calculated post LOCA suppression pool
temperature remains acceptable.
The SLS is used to mitigate the consequences of an Anticipated
Transient Without SCRAM (ATWS) special event and is used to limit
the radiological dose during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The
proposed changes do not affect the capability of the SLS to perform
these two functions in accordance with the assumptions of the
associated analyses. The ATWS evaluation with the proposed changes
incorporated demonstrated that all the ATWS acceptance criteria are
met. The ability of the SLS to mitigate radiological dose in the
event of a LOCA by maintaining suppression pool pH >=7.0 is not
affected by these changes.
This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops
in operation does not result in any modification to the design or
operation of the systems that are used in mitigation of accidents.
Limits have been established, consistent with NRC approved methods,
to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and
accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed change to the SLMCPR
for two recirculation loops in operation continues to conservatively
establish this safety limit such that the fuel is protected during
normal operation and during any plant transients or anticipated
operational occurrences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Will the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Equipment that could be affected by implementing the MELLLA+
operating domain and DSS-CD stability solution was evaluated. No new
operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario,
or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of
accident considerations was evaluated and no new or different kind
of accident was identified. The MELLLA+ operating domain and DSS-CD
stability solution use developed technology and apply it within the
capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment in
accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC
[[Page 32765]]
approved codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event
precursor was identified.
The long-term stability solution is being changed from the
currently approved Option III solution to DSS-CD. DSS-CD is designed
to identify the power oscillation upon inception and initiate
control rod insertion (scram) to terminate the oscillations prior to
any significant amplitude growth. DSS-CD is based on the same
hardware design as Option III. However, it introduces an enhanced
detection algorithm that detects the inception of power oscillations
and generates an earlier power suppression trip signal exclusively
based on successive period confirmation recognition. The existing
Option III algorithms are retained (with generic setpoints) to
provide defense-in-depth protection for unanticipated reactor
instability events.
Structures, systems, and components (SSCs) previously required
for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect safety-related systems or components and do not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety-related system. The physical
changes to the SLS are limited to the increase in the boron-10
enrichment of the sodium pentaborate solution in the SLS storage
tank, the corresponding decrease in the net sodium pentaborate
solution volume requirement in the SLS storage tank, the increase in
the SLS pump discharge pressure acceptance criterion, and the
associated instrumentation changes. The proposed changes do not
otherwise affect the design or operation of the SLS.
This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops
in operation does not result in any modification to the design or
operation of the systems that are used in the mitigation of
accidents. The proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation
loops in operation assures that safety criteria are maintained.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current system
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an
accident or malfunction of a different kind than was previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
(3) Will the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The MELLLA+ operating domain affects only design and operational
margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
and containment were evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain
conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design
and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected SSCs,
including the reactor coolant pressure boundary, will remain within
their design specifications for design basis event categories. No
NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded.
Comprehensive analyses of the proposed changes have concluded
that relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met
without a significant reduction in margins of safety. The analyses
have demonstrated that the NMP2 SSCs are capable of safely
performing at MELLLA+ conditions. The analyses identified and
defined the major input parameters to the Nuclear Steam Supply
System (NSSS), analyzed NSSS design transients, and evaluated the
capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/Balance of Plant (BOP)
interfaces, 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
MELLLA+ conditions without significant reduction in margins of
safety.
Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of
change in the operating domain. Calculated loads on SSCs important
to safety have been shown to remain within design allowables with
MELLLA+ conditions for all design basis event categories. Plant
response to transients and accidents do not result in exceeding
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, the evaluations that
demonstrate acceptability of MELLLA+ 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.
The SLS is used to mitigate the consequences of an ATWS event
and is used to limit the radiological dose during a LOCA. The
proposed changes do not affect the capability of the SLS to perform
these two functions in accordance with the assumptions of the
associated analyses. The ATWS evaluation with the proposed changes
incorporated demonstrated that all the ATWS acceptance criteria are
met. The ability of the SLS to mitigate radiological dose in the
event of a LOCA by maintaining suppression pool pH >= 7.0 is not
affected by these changes.
This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops
in operation provides a margin of safety by ensuring that no more
than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected to be in boiling transition if
the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed change will ensure the
appropriate level of fuel protection is maintained. Additionally,
operational limits are established based on the proposed SLMCPR to
ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated during all modes of
operation. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criteria are
met (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience
transition boiling during normal operation as well as anticipated
operational occurrences).
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: Gautam Sen, Senior Counsel, Constellation
Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 200C,
Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January 23, 2014 (not publicly
available). A publicly-available redacted version dated March 31, 2014,
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14097A088.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone
No. 8 completion date and the physical protection license condition.
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 proposed change to the WCNOC [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation] Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance
capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied
upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has
no impact on 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 proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant
[[Page 32766]]
modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents,
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is
administrative in nature, there is no change to these established
safety margins.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment 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
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas;
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York;
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 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 requester 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 requester'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 requester 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) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester 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
[[Page 32767]]
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\ Requesters 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 20th day of May, 2014.
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; and (ii)
all contentions whose formulation does
not require access to SUNSI (+25
Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20............................. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) staff informs the requester 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 petitioner/requester 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. 2014-12402 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P