[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50742-50750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17477]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0143]
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; notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four
[[Page 50743]]
amendment requests. The amendment requests are for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit
No. 2; Palisades Nuclear Plant; and Hope Creek Generating Station. For
each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve
no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an
order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 1, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 3, 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 August 12, 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-2016-0143. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to the Docket ID NRC-2016-0143, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number (e.g., 50-XXX), application date, and
subject 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-2016-0143.
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 below.
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 the Docket ID NRC-2016-0143, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number (e.g., 50-XXX), 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment 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 if 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. If the Commission
takes 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. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need
[[Page 50744]]
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 to support its position on the issue. 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 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
October 3, 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. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
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, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-
Filing process requires
[[Page 50745]]
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 Electronic Filing 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 Electronic
Filing 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 Electronic Filing 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
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
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 hearing request and petition 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].
[[Page 50746]]
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated May 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15236A044 and ML16125A420, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment, as supplemented, requests plant-specific review and approval
of the following reactor core design methodology reports: (1) DPC-NE-
1008-P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/
SIMULATE-3 for Westinghouse Reactors;'' (2) DPC-NF-2010, Revision 3,
``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design;'' and (3) DPC-NE-2011-
P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating
Limits of Westinghouse Reactors.'' The proposed amendment would also
revise the Harris Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.1.9.6, ``Core
Operating Limits Report,'' and the Robinson TS Section 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to include the reports. The
supplement, dated May 4, 2016, added the latter two design methodology
reports.
The license amendment request, dated August 19, 2015, was
previously noticed in the Federal Register (81 FR 5492; February 2,
2016). This notice supersedes the August 19, 2015, notice in its
entirety to include the expanded scope of both the amendment request
and the no significant hazards consideration determination.
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-1008-
P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(HBRSEP). The CASMO-5 and SIMULATE-3 codes are not used in the
operation of any plant equipment. The benchmark calculations
performed confirm the accuracy of the codes and develop a
methodology for calculating power distribution uncertainties for use
in reload design calculations. The use of power distribution
uncertainties in conjunction with predicted peaking factors ensures
that thermal accident acceptance criteria are satisfied. 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.
The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,''
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The proposed change supports the use
of revised McGuire and Catawba reload design methodologies for
performance of reload design analyses at Harris and Robinson Nuclear
Plants. Implementation of the methodologies will occur following
approval by the NRC. The proposed amendments will have no impact
upon the probability of occurrence of any design basis accident, nor
will they affect the performance of any plant equipment used to
mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There will be no
significant impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be
violated and there will be no adverse effects on the factors that
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-1008-
P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(HBRSEP). It does not change any system functions or maintenance
activities. The change does not involve physical alteration of 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.
The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,''
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The proposed amendments do not change
the methods used for normal plant operation, nor are the methods
used to respond to plant transients modified. Use of the DPC-NF-2010
and DPC-NE-2011-P methodologies does not result in a new or
different type of accident from any previously evaluated. There are
no changes to 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. 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 changes do 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-1008-P,
Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(HBRSEP). As with the existing methodology, the qualification of the
methods therein and the use of power distribution uncertainties
ensure the acceptability of analytical limits under normal,
transient, and accident conditions. The use of the proposed
methodology revision once it has been approved by the NRC will
ensure that all applicable design and safety limits are satisfied
such that the fission product barriers will continue to perform
their design functions.
The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,''
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). Application of the DPC NF-2010 and
DPC-NE-2011-P methodologies will assure the acceptability of thermal
limits assumed in the 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
[[Page 50747]]
limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers will
continue to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated June 7, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16075A103 and ML16159A230, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the PNP Technical Specification (TS) Section
5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and Section 5.6.8, ``Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' Specifically, the licensee
requested to implement an alternate repair criteria (ARC) that invokes
a C--Star inspection length (C*), on a permanent basis for the cold-leg
side of the SGs' tubesheet and to clarify the intent and improve
interpretation of the PNP TSs regarding the previously incorporated ARC
for the hot-leg side of the SGs' tubesheet which was approved by
Amendment No. 225 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071420216).
The license amendment request was noticed in the Federal Register
on June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36604). The notice is being reissued in its
entirety to include a revised description of the amendment request and
associated changes to the no significant hazards consideration
determination.
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.
Previously evaluated accidents are initiated by the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change alters
the SG cold-leg repair criteria by limiting tube inspection length
in the cold-leg tubesheet, to the safety significant section, C*
length, and, as such, does not have a detrimental impact on the
integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that
initiates an analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change has no
significant effect upon previously evaluated accident probabilities
or consequences.
The proposed amendment to revise the PNP SG tube repair criteria
in TS 5.5.8c, does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Alternate repair
criteria are being proposed for the cold-leg side of the SGs that is
consistent with the current alternate repair criteria for the hot-
leg side of the SGs, in TS 5.5.8c.1. The proposed SG tube inspection
length maintains the existing design limits of the SGs and therefore
does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident
involving a tube rupture or primary to secondary accident-induced
leakage, as previously evaluated in the PNP Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Also, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Steam Generator Program Guidelines (NEI 97-06) [(ADAMS Accession No.
ML111310708)] performance criteria for structural integrity and
accident-induced leakage, which are incorporated in PNP TS 5.5.8,
would continue to be satisfied.
Implementing an alternate repair criteria would allow SG tubes
with flaws below the C* length to remain in service. The potential
consequences to leaving these flawed tubes inservice are tube burst,
tube pullout, and accident induced tube leakage. Tube burst is
prevented for a tube with defects within the tubesheet region
because of the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Tube pullout
could result from the axial forces induced by primary to secondary
differential pressures that occur during the bounding event of the
main steam line break. A joint industry test program report, WCAP-
16208-P, NDE Inspection Length for CE Steam Generator Tubesheet
Region Explosive Expansions, Revision 1, May 2005 [(Non-proprietary
version at ADAMS Accession No. ML051520417)], has defined the non-
degraded tube to tubesheet joint length (C*) required to preclude
tube pullout and maintain acceptable primary to secondary accident-
induced leakage, conservatively assuming a 360 degree
circumferential through wall crack exists immediately below this C*
length.
The PNP UFSAR Sections 14.14, Steam Line Rupture Incident,
14.15, Steam Generator Tube Rupture with a Loss of Offsite Power,
and 14.16, Control Rod Ejection, primary coolant system leakage
limit is 0.3 gallon per minute (gpm) (432 gallons per day) in the
unaffected SG. For the tube rupture accident, this 0.3 gpm leakage
is in addition to the break flow rate associated with the rupture of
a single SG tube. The WCAP-16208-P report used a primary to
secondary accident-induced leakage criteria value of 0.1 gpm to
derive the C* length. Use of 0.1 gpm ensures that the PNP TS
limiting accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm is met.
For PNP, the derived C* length for the cold-leg side of the SGs
is 13.67 inches. Any degradation below the C* length is shown by
test results and analysis to meet the NEI 97-06 performance
criteria, thereby precluding an increased probability of a tube
rupture event, or an increase in the consequences of a steam line
rupture incident or control rod ejection accident.
Therefore, the C* lengths for the SG cold-legs provide assurance
that the NEI 97-06 requirements for tube burst and leakage are met
and that the conservatively derived maximum combined leakage from
both tubesheet joints (hot and cold-legs) is less than 0.2 gpm at
accident conditions. This combined leakage criterion of 0.2 gpm in
the faulted loop retains margin against the PNP TS allowable
accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm per SG.
In summary, the proposed changes to the PNP TS maintain existing
design limits, meet the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and
Regulatory Guide 1.121, and the proposed [amendment] does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would 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 provides for an alternate repair criteria
that excludes the lower portion of the steam generator cold-leg
tubes from inspection below a C* length by implementing an alternate
repair criteria. It does not affect the design of the SGs or their
method of operation. It does not impact any other plant system or
component. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the
accident analysis.
The proposed amendment does not introduce any new equipment,
change existing equipment, create any new failure modes for existing
equipment, nor introduce any new malfunctions resulting from tube
degradation. SG tube integrity is shown to be maintained for all
plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed alternate
repair criteria for the SG cold-leg tubesheet region.
The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
because SG tube leakage limits and structural integrity would
continue to be maintained during all plant conditions upon
implementation of the proposed alternate repair criteria to the PNP
TSs. The alternate repair criteria does not introduce any new
mechanisms that might result in a different kind of accident from
those previously evaluated. Even with the limiting
[[Page 50748]]
circumstances of a complete circumferential separation (360 degree
through wall crack) of a tube below the C* length, tube pullout is
precluded and leakage is predicted to be maintained with the TS and
accident analysis limits during all plant conditions.
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 change provides an alternate repair criteria for
the SG cold-leg that invokes a C* inspection length criteria. The
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety since design SG primary to secondary leakage limits
have been analyzed to continue to be met. This will ensure that the
SG cold-legs tubes continue to function as a primary coolant system
boundary by maintaining their integrity. Tube integrity includes
both structural and leakage integrity. The proposed cold-leg
tubesheet inspection C* depth, of 13.67 inches below the bottom of
the cold-leg expansion transition or top of the cold-leg tubesheet,
whichever is lower, would ensure tube integrity is maintained during
normal and accident conditions because any degradation below C* is
shown by test results and analyses to be acceptable.
Operation with potential tube degradation below the proposed C*
cold-leg inspection length within the tubesheet region of the SG
tubing meets the recommendation of NEI 97-06 SG program guidelines.
Additionally, the proposed changes also maintain the structural and
accident-induced leakage integrity as required by NEI 97-06.
The total leakage from an undetected flaw population below the
C* inspection length for the cold-leg tubesheet under postulated
accident conditions is accounted for, in order to assure it is
within the bounds of the accident analysis.
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: Jeanne Cho, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station
(HCGS), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 8, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16181A193 and ML16181A194.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to
incorporate a revised Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) for single recirculation loop (SLO) due to the cycle-specific
analysis for the HCGS Cycle 21.
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 required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section
2.1, Safety Limits, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the
core do not experience transition boiling during normal operation
and analyzed transients, preserving fuel cladding integrity. The
proposed change to the SLMCPR value for SLO ensures this criterion
continues to be met, and therefore does not increase the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, no
plant hardware or operational changes are required with this
proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change 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 required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section
2.1, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience transition boiling during normal operation and analyzed
transients. The proposed change to the SLMCPR value for SLO does not
involve any plant hardware or operational changes and does not
create any new precursors to an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section
2.1, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience transition boiling during normal operation and analyzed
transients, preserving fuel cladding integrity. The revised SLMCPR
value for SLO ensures this criterion continues to be met. In
addition, the proposed change to the SLMCPR for SLO does not
adversely affect the design basis function or performance of a
structure, system, or component as described in the HCGS UFSAR
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
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 No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
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
[[Page 50749]]
General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of
the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery
or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any Motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge, if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is provided access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is provided 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) an 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, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012) 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 proposed contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of July, 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).
[[Page 50750]]
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-17477 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P