[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19641-19651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0058]
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 six amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos.
2 and 3, River Bend Station, Unit 1, and Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 5, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 6, 2016. 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 April 15, 2016.
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-2016-0058. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, 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: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0058 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-2016-0058.
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-2016-0058, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
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 enters the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit
[[Page 19642]]
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 a notice of issuance in
the Federal Register. 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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
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
[[Page 19643]]
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).
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 to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by June
6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
June 6, 2016.
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 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
[[Page 19644]]
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, in some instances, 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.
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].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: November 25, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated January 29, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15336A087 and ML16043A361, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for PVNGS by
modifying the requirements to incorporate the results of an updated
criticality safety analysis for both new and spent fuel storage.
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 would modify the [PVNGS TS] to
incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis
for both new fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality
safety analysis provides an updated methodology that allows credit
for neutron absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and
corrects non-conservative input assumptions in the previous
criticality safety analysis.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in
the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the SFP
cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for
impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents:
Fuel handling accident (FHA)
fuel misload event
SFP boron dilution event
seismic event
loss of SFP cooling event
Implementation of the proposed amendment will be accomplished in
accordance with the Spent Fuel Pool Transition Plan and does not
involve new fuel handling equipment or processes. The radiological
source term of the fuel assemblies is not affected by the proposed
amendment request. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated
with fuel enrichment at this level are addressed in the PVNGS
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.7.4 and
remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of a[n] FHA.
To address the proposed additional arrays, several elements of
the current process were reviewed. Pool layout, region eligibility
specifications and the development of fuel move sheets are separate
tasks. Each of these activities is procedurally controlled and
performed by trained and qualified individuals. This segregation of
activities separates and insulates the complexity of [SFP] module
geometry, fuel region specifications and interface considerations
from the development of fuel movement sheets.
Creation of fuel move sheets in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not significantly change the probability of a fuel
misload event because development of fuel move sheets will continue
to be controlled by approved procedures and developed by qualified
personnel. A review of the additional proposed arrays and the
transitional period (when both the current and new arrays would be
effective in the [SFP]) was performed. The human performance shaping
factors evaluated did not identify significant potential impacts due
to the process changes themselves or the additional arrays. The
review, therefore, confirmed that the potential for human
performance errors resulting in the probability of a misload event
is not significantly increased.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
significantly change the probability of a fuel misload event because
fuel movement activities will continue to be controlled by approved
fuel handling procedures and performed by qualified personnel.
Although there will be additional allowable storage arrays defined
by the amendment, the fuel handling procedures will continue to
require identification of the initial and target locations for each
fuel assembly that is moved.
The consequences of a fuel misload event are not changed because
the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality
criteria and requirements continue to be met for the limiting fuel
misload event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability or consequences of a boron dilution event
because the systems and events that could affect SFP soluble boron
concentration are unchanged. The current boron dilution analysis
demonstrates that the limiting boron dilution event will reduce the
boron concentration from the TS limit of 2150 [parts per million
(ppm)] to 1900 ppm. This leaves sufficient margin to the 1460 ppm
credited by the SFP criticality safety analysis. The analysis
confirms that the time needed
[[Page 19645]]
for dilution to reduce the soluble boron concentration is greater
than the time needed for actions to be taken to prevent further
dilution.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a seismic event since there are no
elements of the updated criticality analysis that influence the
occurrence of a seismic event. The consequences of a seismic event
are not significantly increased because the forcing functions for
seismic excitation are not increased and because the mass of storage
racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts is not appreciably
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in
the storage racks when inserts are installed.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures, or
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the
NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed.
Therefore, 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 accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the PVNGS TS to incorporate
the results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new
fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis
provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron
absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and corrects non-
conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety
analysis.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in
the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup
system. The effects of operating with the proposed amendment are
listed below. The proposed amendment was evaluated for the potential
of each effect to create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident:
Addition of inserts to the SFP storage racks,
new storage patterns,
additional weight from the inserts, and
displacement of SFP water by the inserts.
Each NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] insert will be placed between a fuel
assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up some of the space
available on two sides of the fuel assembly. Analyses demonstrate
that the presence of the inserts does not adversely affect spent
fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality. The aluminum
and boron carbide materials of construction have been shown to be
compatible with nuclear fuel, storage racks, and SFP environments,
and generate no adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing
the inserts into the SFP storage racks cannot cause a new or
different kind of accident.
Operation with the added weight of the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg]
inserts will not create a new or different accident. The analyses of
the racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed demonstrate
that the stress levels in the rack modules continue to be
considerably less than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the added
weight from the inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of
accident.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not
create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement
will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures.
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements. Analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these
requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of
accident.
The scenario involving the inadvertent removal of a SNAP-
IN[supreg] insert was evaluated and found to not represent a ``new
or different kind of accident.'' Rather, it represents a loss of
reactivity configuration control, which is a less significant form
of a fuel assembly misload event. Whenever a fuel assembly is placed
in a storage configuration that is not explicitly allowed, a fuel
assembly misload condition is created, whether it is the removal of
a SNAP-IN[supreg] insert or the placement of a fuel assembly in a
location that is missing a specified SNAP-IN[supreg] insert. An
inadvertent removal of a SNAP-IN[supreg] insert is, therefore, not a
new kind of accident but rather an alternate way of creating a
previously evaluated accident. Loading a fuel assembly into a
storage cell location required to be vacant and blocked (the
limiting accident of this type) bounds the removal of a SNAP-
IN[supreg] insert.
Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create
a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling
tool weighs less than the weight of a single fuel assembly. Single
fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over fuel assemblies and
the same level of safety in design and operation will be maintained
when moving the inserts.
The installed rack inserts will displace a negligible quantity
of the SFP water volume and therefore, will not reduce operator
response time to previously-evaluated SFP accidents.
The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding.
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.
The proposed amendment would modify the TS to incorporate the
results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new fuel
and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis
provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron
absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and corrects non-
conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety
analysis. It was evaluated for its effect on current margins of
safety as they relate to criticality, structural integrity, and
spent fuel heat removal capability. The margin of safety for
subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New
criticality analyses confirm that operation in accordance with the
proposed amendment continues to meet the required subcriticality
margins.
The structural evaluations for the racks and [SFP] with NETCO-
SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed show that the rack and SFP are
unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion, and there
is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack and
NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts.
The proposed amendment does not affect spent fuel heat
generation, heat removal from the fuel assembly, or the SFP cooling
systems. The effects of the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts are
negligible with regards to volume of water in the pool, flow in the
SFP rack cells, and heat removal system performance.
The addition of a Spent Fuel Pool Rack Neutron Absorber
Monitoring program (proposed TS 5.5.21) provides a method to
identify potential degradation in the neutron absorber material
prior to challenging the assumptions of the criticality safety
analysis related to the material. Therefore, the addition of this
monitoring program does not reduce the margin of safety; rather it
ensures the margin of safety is maintained for the planned life of
the spent fuel storage racks.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina;
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A351.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
[[Page 19646]]
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment requested plant-specific review and approval of a reactor
core design methodology report DPC-NE-3008-P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-
Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' for adoption into the HNP
and RNP Technical Specifications.
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 requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,''
to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). The benchmark calculations
performed confirm the accuracy of the codes and models. The proposed
use of this methodology does not affect the performance of any
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident.
There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
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 requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,''
to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plat (RNP). It does not change any system
functions or maintenance activities. The change does not physically
alter the plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will
be installed. The software is not installed in any plant equipment,
and therefore the software is incapable of initiating an equipment
malfunction that would result in a new or different type of accident
from any previously evaluated. The change does not alter assumptions
made in the safety analyses but ensures that the core will operate
within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing, and no new
accident precursors are generated.
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.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P,
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' to
be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). DPC-NE-3008-P will be used in
thermal-hydraulic transient analyses as a portion of the overall
Duke Energy methodology for cycle reload safety analyses. As with
the existing methodology, the Duke Energy methodology will continue
to ensure (a) the acceptability of analytical limits under normal,
transient, and accident conditions, and (b) that all applicable
design and safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product
barriers will continue to perform their design functions.
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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15362A169.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the as-found lift setting tolerance for main
steam line code safety valves (MSSVs), revise the nominal reactor trip
setpoint on pressurizer water level, and revise pressurizer water level
span in the Technical Specifications (TS).
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 TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative
change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS
3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-
analysis of the HNP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Section
15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure event. The proposed changes do not
alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints. The proposed TS changes have
been evaluated on a plant specific basis. The required plant
specific analyses and evaluations included transient analysis of the
turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3), evaluation of the changes
on the peak clad temperature from the [Small Break] Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) event, and disposition of the changes on all other
FSAR events. The revised analysis evaluations were based on the
existing design pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS) and the
main steam (MS) system.
These analyses and evaluations demonstrate that there is
adequate margin to the specified acceptable fuel design limits
(SAFDL) and the design pressures of the RCS and the MS system. The
evaluations also demonstrate that the change will result in
acceptable peak clad temperature (PCT) results for LOCA analyses.
The change has no impact on the design pressure for the containment
as peak containment pressure and temperature are obtained from
postulated pipe breaks in the containment that do not challenge the
MSSV lift setpoints. The MSSVs vent directly to open, ambient
conditions and do not directly contribute to the temperature or
pressure profile for any structure, system, or component.
There is a change in the flow rate credited for the auxiliary
feedwater system (AFW) based on the higher MSSV opening tolerance.
This change has been evaluated for each of the FSAR Chapter 15
events. The impact of the decrease in AFW flow is included in the
PCT change for SB [small break] LOCA. The AFW flow effects for all
other events have been determined to be acceptable.
As a result, the probability of a malfunction of the RCS and the
main steam system are not increased and the consequences of such an
accident remain acceptable. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do
not significantly increase 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative
change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS
3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-
analysis of the FSAR, Section 15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure
event.
[[Page 19647]]
Plant specific analyses and evaluations indicate that the plant
response to any previously evaluated event will remain acceptable.
All plant systems, structures, and components will continue to be
capable of performing their required safety function as required by
event analysis guidance.
The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift
setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment
important to safety has been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
All structures and components will continue to be operated within
acceptable operating and/or design parameters. No system, structure,
or component will be subjected to a condition that has not been
evaluated and determined to be acceptable using the guidance
required for specific event analysis.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative
change to the reactor trip setpoint on high pressurizer level and
makes TS 3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in
the re-analysis of the FSAR Section, 15.2.3 turbine trip
overpressure event.
The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift
setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment
important to safety is unchanged. All systems, structures, and
components will continue to be operated within acceptable operating
and/or design parameters. The calculated peak reactor vessel
pressure and main steam system pressure for the turbine trip
overpressure event remains within the acceptance criteria. A new
analysis is submitted to support the change. The model used for the
re-analyzed turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3) is based on
methodologies previously approved by the NRC for other licensees.
The consequences of the turbine trip event continue to be within
the regulatory limit for the event, thus the margin of safety for
overpressure remains unchanged. The impact on LOCA has been
evaluated and the PCT change results in a PCT that is lower than the
regulatory limit. Therefore, the margin to safety for cladding
performance in this event is not reduced.
The margin of safety for the containment is unaffected by the
proposed change. Therefore, the proposed TS 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: Lara Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New
York
Date of amendment request: December 10, 2015. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15350A006.
Description of amendment request: These amendment requests contain
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the near end-of-life moderator temperature
coefficient (MTC) surveillance requirement and technical specification
(TS) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, by placing
a set of conditions on reactor core operation, which if met, would
allow revision from the required MTC measurement.
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 safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density
coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases
for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for
Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing.
Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance
limit to determine if the limit is met.
The proposed changes to the TS do not affect the initiators of
any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the
proposed TS changes ensures that the previously evaluated accidents
will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. The proposed changes do
not adversely affect the design function or operation of any
structures, systems, and components important to safety.
The probability or consequences of accidents previously
evaluated in the [updated final safety analysis report] UFSAR are
unaffected by this proposed change because there is no change to any
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario. There are no new
or additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing
equipment or any new limiting single failures.
Additionally the proposed changes do not involve a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions
will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses.
Thus, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the design
function or operation of any structures, systems, and components
important to safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity
of any safety-related system.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect
on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-
related systems and components. A change to a surveillance
requirement is proposed based on an alternate method of confirming
that the surveillance is met. The Technical Specification Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) limits are not being changed.
The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of
plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident
analysis.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains,
New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as revised by letter
dated December 3, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
[[Page 19648]]
Accession Nos. ML15188A369 and ML15345A389, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). This
amendment request proposes to change the RBS Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and
proposes a revision to the existing operating license Physical
Protection license condition. The revised submittal reflects
administrative changes made to remove security-related information
only, and did not change the technical content of the original
submittal.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), in the letter dated
December 3, 2015, 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. 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 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 CSP 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 components
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
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the CSP implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. 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.
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15327A244.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.16, ``Spent
Fuel Storage Pool Boron Concentration,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage
Criticality,'' to allow spent fuel pool storage of nuclear fuel
containing a boron-based neutron absorber in the form of zirconium
diboride (ZrB2) Integral Fuel Burnable Absorber.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat
generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The proposed
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated criticality events and accidents and no impacts were
identified: (1) Fuel assembly misloading, (2) loss of spent fuel
pool cooling, and (3) spent fuel boron dilution.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection
and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require
identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel
assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of
a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading
event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because
the change in fuel burnup requirements and SFP boron concentration
have no bearing on the systems, structures, and components involved
in initiating such an event. The proposed amendment does not change
the heat load imposed by spent fuel assemblies nor does it change
the flow paths in the spent fuel pool. Finally, a criticality
analysis of the limiting fuel loading configuration confirmed that
the condition would remain subcritical at the resulting temperature
value. Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for
the proposed amendment.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the
incremental changes in TS values have no bearing on the systems,
structures, and components involved in initiating or sustaining the
intrusion of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. The
consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged because the
proposed amendment has no bearing on the systems that operators
would use to identify and terminate a dilution event. Also,
implementation of the proposed amendment will not affect any of the
other key parameters of the boron dilution analysis which includes
SFP water inventory, volume of SFP contents, the assumed initial
boron concentration of the accident, and the sources of dilution
water. Finally, a criticality analysis of the limiting fuel loading
configuration confirmed that the dilution event would be terminated
at a soluble boron concentration value that ensured a subcritical
condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a criticality
accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve incremental changes to TS values,
and represent minimal
[[Page 19649]]
change to existing fuel selection and SFP loading procedures.
Further, the proposed changes involve no change to plant systems,
structures, components or to the processes for fuel handling. The
proposed changes do not involve new SFP loading configurations and
do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel
storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the
pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and
cleanup system. As such, the proposed changes introduce no new
material interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that
could create the potential for an accident of a new or different
type.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of
safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is
unchanged. The new criticality analysis confirms that operation in
accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the
required subcriticality margin. Increasing the minimum SFP soluble
boron concentration ensures that subcriticality margins will be
preserved, and increases the margin of safety associated with a
boron dilution event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New
York
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
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
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
[[Page 19650]]
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 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 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, 23rd day of March, 2016.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19651]]
[FR Doc. 2016-07168 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P