[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20493-20500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08896]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0100]


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 three amendment requests. The amendment 
requests are for Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 
2; Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Peach Bottom 
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; and South Carolina Electric & Gas 
Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer 
Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3. 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 June 1, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 3, 2017. 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 May 12, 2017.

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-2017-0100. 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: TWFN-8-D36, 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:

[[Page 20494]]

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0100, 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-2017-0100.
     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-2017-0100, 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 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 petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. 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. 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/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (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 that may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in 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 must 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

[[Page 20495]]

provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the 
petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of 
law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of 
the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would 
entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the 
requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) 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. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    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 establish 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 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 the 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 July 
3, 2017. 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. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
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 
his or her 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 and petition, any motion or other document filed in 
the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or 
petition, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that 
request to participate 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. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may 
be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on 
the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 
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 (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (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. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must 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 document is 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 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.

[[Page 20496]]

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's 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 6 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, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents 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 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. 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.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 3, 2016, and November 10, 2016. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15323A351, 
ML16278A080, and ML16315A286.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The NRC 
staff previously made a proposed determination that the license 
amendment request dated November 19, 2015, involves no significant 
hazards consideration (81 FR 19645; April 5, 2016). Subsequently, by 
letter dated October 3, 2016, the licensee provided additional 
information that expanded the scope of the amendment request as 
originally noticed. Accordingly, this notice supersedes the previous 
notice in its entirety. The amendment requests plant-specific review 
and approval of reactor core design methodology reports DPC-NE-3008-P, 
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' and 
DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report/
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15 Transient Analysis 
Methodology,'' for adoption into the HNP and RNP Technical 
Specifications. In the supplement dated October 3, 2016, the licensee 
added the request for the review and approval of DPC-NE-3009-P, 
Revision 0.
    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 changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' 
and DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient 
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). The 
benchmark calculations performed confirm the accuracy of the codes 
and models. The proposed use of this methodology does not affect the 
performance of any equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an 
analyzed accident. There is no impact on the source term or pathways 
assumed in accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are 
violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors that 
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' 
and DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient 
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). It does 
not change any system functions or maintenance activities. The 
change does not physically alter the plant, that is, no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed. The software is not 
installed in any plant equipment, and therefore the software is 
incapable of initiating an equipment malfunction that would result 
in a new or different type of accident from any previously 
evaluated. The proposed methodology and safety analysis assumptions 
ensure that the core will operate within safe limits. This change 
does not create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not 
identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are 
generated.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P, 
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' and 
DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient 
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant (HNP)

[[Page 20497]]

and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). As a portion of the 
overall Duke Energy methodology for cycle reload safety analyses, 
DPC-NE-3008-P will be used in thermal-hydraulic transient analyses 
and DPC-NE-3009-P will support the performance of FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 
15 transient analysis. As with the existing methodologies, the Duke 
Energy methodologies will continue to ensure (a) the acceptability 
of analytical limits under normal, transient, and accident 
conditions, and (b) that all applicable design and safety limits are 
satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to 
perform their design functions.
    Therefore, the proposed 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: February 17, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17048A444.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications to implement a measurement uncertainty 
recapture power uprate. Specifically, the amendment would authorize an 
increase in the maximum licensed thermal power level from 3,951 
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4,016 MWt, which is an increase of 
approximately 1.66 percent.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No, the proposed increase in power level does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not affect system design or operation 
and thus do not create any new accident initiators or increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. All accident 
mitigation systems will function as designed, and all performance 
requirements for these systems have been evaluated and were found 
acceptable.
    The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) 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 during normal and accident conditions. Thus, there is no 
increase in the probability of a structural failure of these 
components.
    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, EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has concluded that all 
structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient 
remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
    All safety analyses have either been performed at 102% of 
Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) and therefore bound the 
proposed uprate or have been subject to plant-specific analyses at a 
power level equal to or greater than the proposed uprate. The 
results demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the applicable 
analyses continue to be met at the uprated conditions. 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.
    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 increase in power level does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
All systems, structures, 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. 
No new equipment or procedure changes are involved that could add 
new accident initiators.
    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 proposed increase in power level does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    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 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16301A385.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment request proposes a change to Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* information to specify the supplemental 
requirement of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-
1994, ``American National Standard Specification for the Design, 
Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for 
Nuclear Facilities'' (AISC N690-1994), Section Q1.26.2.2, ``Partial-
Penetration Welds,'' for the demonstration of sufficient strength and 
quality of the carbon steel embedment plate coupler welds to be

[[Page 20498]]

credited as justification for the determination that the installed 
coupler welds are capable of performing their intended design function. 
The requested amendment proposes a change to Tier 2* information. This 
submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to 
implement these changes.
    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 describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetrate on (PJP) welds 
with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon 
steel embedment plates as being able to perform their intended 
design function in lieu of satisfying the American Institute of 
Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement 
for non-destructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent weld 
populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events.
    The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the 
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are 
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected. The change 
does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical or 
fluid systems. The change does not impact the support, design, or 
operation of any safety-related structures. There is no change to 
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident 
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant 
response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not 
adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new 
accident precursors.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement 
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being 
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC 
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive 
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does 
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may 
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such 
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is 
created.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect the design 
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the 
couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of 
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, 
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or 
nonsafety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new 
fission product release path, result in a new fission product 
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result 
in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the requested 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 describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement 
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being 
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC 
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive 
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change 
satisfies the same design functions in accordance with the same 
codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not 
adversely affect compliance with any design code, function, design 
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. 
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the requested 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (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 access to SUNSI. 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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 20499]]

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 
receipt of (or access to) that information. 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.
    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 requisite need, 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) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    (3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
    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 within 5 days of the notification by the 
NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed 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) if 
another officer has been designated to rule on information access 
issues, with that officer.
    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 propounded contentions 
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The 
attachment 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 27th day of April, 2017.

    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 20500]]

 
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 opportunity to request a hearing
                            and petition for leave to intervene), 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. 2017-08896 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P