[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68467-68474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23210]
[[Page 68467]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0194]
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 amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3;
Columbia Generating Station; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. 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 November 3, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 5, 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 October 14, 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-2016-0194. 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: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0194, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, 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-2016-0194.
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 this
document.
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-2016-0194, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, 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
[[Page 68468]]
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 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
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition)
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 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 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
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 petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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
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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 petitioner
to relief. A 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 the NRC's 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 December 5, 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
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
[[Page 68469]]
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 (hereinafter
``petition''), 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 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 petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 9 a.m.
and 7 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 petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A336.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical
[[Page 68470]]
Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, to support the
implementation of next generation fuel (NGF). In addition to the
license amendment request (LAR), APS is requesting an exemption from
certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for
Emergency Core Cooling Systems [(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod cladding
material.
The proposed change will allow for the implementation of NGF
including the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material. The NGF assemblies contain advanced features to enhance fuel
reliability, thermal performance, and fuel cycle economics.
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 change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The NRC approved topical report CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A and
Addendum 2-A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates
that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same
properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding
itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident
probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has
been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and, therefore,
will not increase the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and
revisions will be met as described in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure
to APS's letter dated July 1, 2016].
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 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 change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical
report CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of
Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of standard
ZIRLO[supreg].
Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will
perform similarly to those fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg]
thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident
initiator and causing a new or different type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and
revisions as identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure to APS's
letter dated July 1, 2016], will be met as described in Section 3.2.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not
significantly different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg].
Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to
standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating, transient, and
accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA)
and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, where the slight
difference in Optimized ZIRLOTM material properties
relative to standard ZIRLO[supreg] could have some impact on the
overall accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using
Optimized ZIRLOTM properties were performed. These LOCA
analyses demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46
are satisfied when Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is
implemented.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. The proposed changes to
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved topical reports, as
described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical
methods. The proposed changes do not amend the cycle specific
parameter limits located in the PVNGS unit specific [core operating
limits report (COLR)] from the values presently required by the TS.
The individual specifications continue to require operation of the
plant within the bounds of the limits specified in PVNGS unit
specific COLR.
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: 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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated August 18, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and ML16231A511.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the operating license and technical
specifications to implement an increase in rated thermal power from the
current licensed thermal power of 3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a
measurement uncertainty recapture thermal power of 3544 MWt.
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?
[[Page 68471]]
Response: No.
The proposed change will increase the Columbia Generating
Station rated thermal power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt. The
reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed uprated
power conditions included all structures, systems and components
that would be affected by the proposed changes. The reviews and
evaluations determined that these structures, systems, and
components are capable of performing their design function at the
proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All accident mitigation systems
will function as designed, and all performance requirements for
these systems have been evaluated and were found acceptable.
Thus, the proposed changes do not create any new accident
initiators or increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural
failure of these components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their
intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a failure of
these components. The safety relief valves and containment isolation
valves meet design sizing requirements at the uprated power level.
Because the integrity of the plant will not be affected by operation
at the uprated condition, Energy Northwest has concluded that all
structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
The current safety analyses remain applicable, since they were
performed at power levels that bound operation at a core power of
3544 MWt. The results demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the
applicable analyses continue to be met at the uprated conditions. As
such, all applicable accident analyses continue to comply with the
relevant event acceptance criteria. The analyses performed to assess
the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. The source
terms used to assess radiological consequences have been reviewed
and determined to bound operation at the uprated condition.
Power level is an input assumption to equipment design and
accident analyses, but it is not a transient or accident initiator.
Accident initiators are not affected by power uprate, and plant
safety barrier challenges are not created by the proposed changes.
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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current system
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an
accident or malfunction of a different kind than previously
evaluated. All structures, systems and components previously
required for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of
fulfilling their intended design functions. The proposed changes
have no adverse effects on any safety-related system or component
and do not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related system.
Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does not create any new
accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded
by the current accident analysis of record or recent evaluations
demonstrate that applicable criteria are still met with the proposed
changes. 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.
The margins of safety associated with the power uprate are those
pertaining to core thermal power. Operation at the uprated power
condition does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Analyses of the primary fission product barriers have
concluded that relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both from
the standpoint of the integrity of the primary fission product
barrier, and from the standpoint of compliance with the required
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all evaluations have been
performed using methods that have either been reviewed or approved
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16190A248.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8
implementation schedule for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, this
change would extend the PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the PSEG CSP implementation
schedule and revise the Facility Operating Licenses.
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 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. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes 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
[[Page 68472]]
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplement by letter
dated August 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16188A105 and ML16221A034, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the implementation date for Milestone No. 8 of
the Cyber Security Plan.
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 revises the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule. 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 is a
change to the completion date of Implementation Milestone 8, that in
itself 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
have 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 revises the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule. This proposed change to modify the
completion date of Implementation Milestone 8 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.
This change also 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
revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. Because
there is no change to these established safety margins as result of
this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
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\
[[Page 68473]]
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 19th day of September, 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).
[[Page 68474]]
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. 2016-23210 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P