[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65427-65434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25530]
[[Page 65427]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0230]
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 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant; and St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2. 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 December 4, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 5, 2015. 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 November 14, 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-2014-0230. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C. 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. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0230 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0230.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain 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.
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-2014-0230 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 posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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
[[Page 65428]]
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/
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 unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger of the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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 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
[[Page 65429]]
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 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].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014. A redacted, publicly-
available, version is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14176A109.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would implement a measurement uncertainty recapture power
uprate at Catawba Unit 1 that would increase authorized core power
level from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt. This is an
increase of approximately 1.7 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP). The
increase in thermal power is based on the use of Cameron (a.k.a.
Caldon) instrumentation to determine core power level with a power
measurement uncertainty of approximately 0.3 percent.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the rated thermal power from 3411
MWt to 3469 MWt; an increase of approximately 1.7% Rated Thermal Power.
Duke Energy's evaluations have shown that all structures, systems and
components (SSCs) are capable of performing their design function at
the uprated power of 3469 MWt. A review
[[Page 65430]]
of station accident analyses found that all acceptance criteria are
still met at the uprated power of 3469 MWt.
The radiological consequences of operation at the uprated power
conditions have been assessed. The proposed power uprate does not
affect release paths, frequency of release, or the analyzed reactor
core fission product inventory for any accidents previously evaluated
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Analyses performed to
assess the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. All
acceptance criteria for radiological consequences continue to be met at
the uprated power level.
The proposed change does not involve any change to the design or
functional requirements of the safety and support systems. That is, the
increased power level neither degrades the performance of, nor
increases the challenges to any safety systems assumed to function in
the plant safety analysis.
While power level is an input to accident analyses, it is not an
initiator of accidents. The proposed change does not affect any
accident precursors and does not introduce any accident initiators. The
proposed change does not impact the usefulness of the Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) in evaluating the operability of required systems
and components.
In addition, evaluation of the proposed TS [Technical
Specification] changes demonstrates that the availability of equipment
and systems required to prevent or mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident is not significantly affected. Since the
impact on the systems is minimal, it is concluded that the overall
impact on the plant safety analysis is negligible.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly increase
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures
are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The installation of
the Cameron LEFM [Leading Edge Flow Meter] CheckPlus\TM\ System has
been analyzed and failures of the system will have no adverse effect on
any safety related system or any SSCs required for transient
mitigation. SSCs previously required for the mitigation of a transient
continue to be capable of fulfilling their intended design functions.
The proposed change has no adverse effect on any safety related system
or component and does not change the performance or integrity of any
safety related system.
The proposed 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 previously evaluated.
Operation at the uprated power level does not create any new accident
initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded by existing
accident analyses of record or new evaluations demonstrating that
applicable criteria are still met with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Although the proposed amendment increases the Catawba Unit 1
operating power level, the unit retains its margin of safety because it
is only increasing power by the amount equal to the reduction in
uncertainty in the heat balance calculation. The margins of safety
associated with the power uprate are those pertaining to core thermal
power. These include fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure
boundary, and containment barriers. Analyses demonstrate that the
current design basis continues to be met after the measurement
uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate. Components associated with
the reactor coolant system pressure boundary structural integrity,
including pressure-temperature limits, vessel fluence, and pressurized
thermal shock are bounded by the current analyses. Systems will
continue to operate within their design parameters and remain capable
of performing their intended safety functions.
The current Catawba safety analyses, including the design basis
radiological accident dose calculations, bound the power uprate.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte,
North Carolina, 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC., Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13093A064 and ML13093A065.
Description of amendment request: This proposed amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
proposed amendment requests approval of a new fire protection licensing
basis of National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805),
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 50.48(c),
and Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,''
dated December 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Ginna to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205.
The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection
requirements that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50
Appendix R required fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16,
2004).
Operation of Ginna in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering
evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling
calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-
based requirements of NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of
[[Page 65431]]
design basis accidents at Ginna. The proposed amendment does not affect
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions,
or configurations of the facility that would increase the probability
of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the changes to be made for
fire hazard protection and mitigation do not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, or components to perform their design
functions for accident mitigation, nor do they affect the postulated
initiators or assumed failure modes for accidents described and
evaluated in the UFSAR. Structures, systems, or components required to
safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for
satisfying General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, meets
the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations
and guidance, and provides for defense-in-depth. The goals, performance
objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of the
standard ensure that, if there are any increases in core damage
frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
The proposed amendment will not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the
radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated, and
equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the assumed function(s). The applicable radiological dose
criteria will continue to be met.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Ginna in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter
the requirements or functions for systems required during accident
conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing basis,
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, will not result in new or different
accidents.
The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different accident
initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility in such a manner as to introduce new or
different accident initiators. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components to
perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components
required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the
impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated. Thus,
implementation of the proposed amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident beyond those already
analyzed in the UFSAR. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors,
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced, and
there will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-
related system as a result of the proposed amendment.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Ginna to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory
Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to
the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire protection features (69 Fed.
Reg. 33536, June 16, 2004).
The overall approach of NFPA 805 is consistent with the key
principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in
Regulatory Guide 1.174, is consistent with the defense-in-depth
philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins. Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed
to demonstrate that the performance based methods do not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Operation of Ginna in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment does
not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components
to perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components
required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment 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: Gautam Sen, Sr. Counsel--Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland,
21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated August 19, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14192A022 and ML14241A422, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 65432]]
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 Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule is administrative in nature. 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, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability or the
structures, systems and components 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 change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the 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 modifications which affect the performance
capability of the structures, systems and a component 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
accident 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 of
operation, limiting safety systems settings and safety limits specified
in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the Cyber
Security Plan implementation schedule is administrative in nature.
Because there is no change in these established safety margins as
result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, Florida, 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC., Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation.
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
[[Page 65433]]
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.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
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 five 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 five 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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 21st day of October, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Acting, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65434]]
[FR Doc. 2014-25530 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P