[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31190-31197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12919]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0116]


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 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane 
Arnold Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, 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 August 2, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 3, 2018. 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 July 13, 2018.

[[Page 31191]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0116. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, 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 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-2018-0116, 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 website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0116.
     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 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-2018-0116, 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 website 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

[[Page 31192]]

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 which 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 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 no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 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 for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities 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 website 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 website 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

[[Page 31193]]

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 website 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.
    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 website 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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17299A125.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) to provide off-nominal success criteria for maintaining the 
reactor in a safe shutdown condition when using the Standby Shutdown 
Facility (SSF) to mitigate a Turbine Building (TB) flood occurring when 
an Oconee Nuclear Station unit is not at nominal full power conditions. 
The amendments would also revise the UFSAR to allow the use of the Main 
Steam (MS) Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs), when available, to enhance 
SSF mitigation capabilities.
    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 provides off-nominal success criteria for 
SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during off-nominal initial 
conditions. The proposed change does not impact the current success 
criteria for SSF events occurring during nominal full power initial 
conditions. The LAR [license amendment request] also requests NRC 
approval to use the MS ADVs, when available, to enhance SSF 
mitigation capabilities. The proposed change does not adversely 
impact containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel 
design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve set points, or 
radwaste systems. No new radiological release pathways are created. 
During licensing of the SSF design, SSF performance was evaluated 
assuming the events that were to be mitigated by the SSF were 
initiated from nominal full power conditions. Duke Energy analyses 
demonstrate that SSF mitigated Turbine Building flood events 
occurring during off-nominal full power conditions can be mitigated 
acceptably when the proposed off-nominal success criteria are met. 
As such, the proposed change does not have a significant impact on 
the dose consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The SSF 
is not an event initiator; therefore, it does not affect the 
frequency of occurrence of accidents previously evaluated in the 
UFSAR. The use of off-nominal success criteria is not a precursor to 
a TB flood event; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of any event requiring 
operation of the SSF. The proposed off-nominal success criteria will 
continue to ensure the SSF can maintain the unit(s) in a safe 
shutdown condition. As such, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of any event requiring 
operation of the SSF.
    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 UFSAR change requests approval to modify the SSF 
licensing basis for off-nominal conditions by using off-nominal 
success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during 
off-nominal conditions. Duke Energy analyses demonstrate that 
meeting the off-nominal success criteria is an acceptable method of 
mitigating the TB flood event and does not create the possibility of 
a new or different

[[Page 31194]]

kind of accident. The LAR also requests NRC approval to use the main 
steam atmospheric dump valves, when available, to enhance the 
mitigation of SSF events. The proposed change does not change the 
design function or operation of the SSF. The SSF is designed with 
the capability to mitigate a TB flood and meet specific success 
criteria for the entire 72 hour mission time. These changes do not 
adversely affect this mission time.
    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident since the proposed change does not 
introduce credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change requests approval of an off-nominal set of 
success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during 
off-nominal power conditions. Duke Energy analyses demonstrate there 
is adequate margin to prevent lift of pressurizer safety valves 
while water-solid. The proposed change does not involve operating 
installed equipment (ADVs) in a new or different manner. The ADVs 
are periodically tested and have been used successfully for a plant 
cooldown. Use of the ADVs to enhance the mitigation of SSF events 
serves to improve plant safety by preventing the pressurizer from 
reaching water-solid conditions and by reducing the pressure at 
which the MS system is controlled. ADV use also allows plant 
stabilization to occur more quickly and at lower temperatures, and 
eliminates repeated cycling of the MS relief valves. The proposed 
change does not involve a change to any set points for parameters 
which initiate protective or mitigation action and does not have any 
impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. 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: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17352A335.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.7, 
``Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breakers,'' by revising the 
required number of operable vacuum breakers for opening from six to 
five.
    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.
    Operable suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers are 
required for accident mitigation. Failure of the vacuum breakers is 
not assumed as an accident initiator for any accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, any potential failure of a vacuum breaker to 
perform when necessary will not affect the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change maintains a sufficient number of operable 
vacuum breakers to meet the limiting design basis accident 
conditions. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
while utilizing the proposed change are no different than the 
consequences of an accident prior to the proposed change. As a 
result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased [sic].
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve an increase 
in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated 
accident.
    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 does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    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.
    The proposed change to the minimum number of operable 
suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers for opening ensures 
that an excessive negative differential pressure between the 
suppression chamber and the drywell will be prevented during the 
most limiting postulated design-basis event. The minimum number of 
operable suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers for opening 
is set appropriately to ensure adequate margin based on the number 
of available vacuum breakers not having an effect on the containment 
system analysis report. 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 Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, 
Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18068A685.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to add TS 
3.7.20, ``Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air Conditioning (A/C) 
System,'' to the Callaway Plant TSs. This proposed change would enhance 
the capability of one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train to 
provide adequate area cooling for both trains of Class 1E electrical 
equipment during normal and accident conditions.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The safety-related Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system is 
designed to perform its area cooling function for the Class 1E 
electrical equipment during normal and accident conditions. Since 
the supported Class 1E electrical equipment is utilized and required 
to be available for accident mitigation, the Class 1E Electrical 
Equipment A/C system performs an accident mitigation function. The 
system itself, however, is not involved in the initiation of 
accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis 
Report]. That is, failure of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C 
system itself is not an initiator of such accidents, and 
consequently, the proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 does not involve an 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 31195]]

    The proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 creates an LCO [Limiting 
Condition for Operation] requirement for Operability of both Class 
1E electrical equipment A/C trains during applicable plant 
conditions. The LCO requirement for both trains to be Operable 
provides redundancy and single-failure protection, thus maximizing 
the availability of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system 
function(s). This serves to preserve assumptions regarding the 
Operability and/or availability of the Class 1E electrical equipment 
supported by the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system.
    In addition to the proposed LCO requiring the Operability of 
both Class 1E electrical equipment A/C trains, a Condition and 
associated Required Actions are proposed to address the 
inoperability of one of the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C 
trains. The proposed Required Action(s) provides for more than 
merely specifying a Completion Time for restoring the inoperable 
train. Proposed Actions A.1 and A.2 together ensure a continuation 
of the Class 1E electrical equipment cooling function for both 
trains of equipment by requiring mitigating actions to be taken and 
periodic verification that room area temperatures remain within the 
specified limit. These Required Actions are met through enhanced 
ventilation capability provided by plant modifications that enable 
the remaining single Operable Class 1E electrical equipment A/C 
train to provide adequate cooling to the areas of both trains of 
Class 1E electrical equipment. This ensures continued area cooling 
during the period of time permitted for restoring the inoperable 
Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train.
    The addition of TS 3.7.20 to the plant's Technical 
Specifications thus supports the availability of the Class 1E 
Electrical Equipment A/C cooling function, consistent with the 
assumptions of the plant's accident analysis. This support of the 
intended accident mitigation capability means that the proposed 
change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    In regard to the accident analyses and assumed overall 
protection system capability/response, protection system performance 
will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident 
analyses since no hardware changes are being made to the protection 
systems. The same Reactor Trip System (RTS) and Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation will continue to be 
supported and used as assumed so that the protection systems will 
continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design 
basis.
    With regard to the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the 
associated reduction in heater capacity for the heaters in the 
Control Room Pressurization System filter trains, the heaters 
function to mitigate accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR, but 
failure of the heaters themselves (or the filter trains themselves) 
is not an initiator of such accidents. Further, even with the 
proposed reduction in heater capacity (wattage), the new heater 
capacity will still exceed filter operational requirements and the 
required safety margin by a significant amount. Therefore, the 
proposed change to the heater capacity will not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident described in the Callaway 
FSAR.
    In consideration of all the above, for both TS changes, the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents are required to be postulated from 
addition of proposed TS 3.7.20. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be 
introduced as a result of this amendment. The proposed LCO will 
require both Class 1E electrical equipment A/C trains to be 
maintained OPERABLE during plant operation, thereby maintaining the 
capability of the system to perform its specified safety function 
for the supported electrical equipment. The proposed license 
amendment includes regulatory commitments to achieve the capability 
for one OPERABLE Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train to provide 
adequate cooling for both trains of electrical equipment during 
normal and accident conditions via design changes, but that 
capability will only be utilized per the temporary provisions of a 
Condition and Required Action(s) under TS 3.7.20.
    The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance 
of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 
System, Solid State Protection System, Balance of Plant Engineered 
Safety Features Actuation System, Main Steam and Feedwater Isolation 
System, or Load Shedder and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the 
plant protection systems. As such, the change does not have a 
detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment operates 
or responds to an actuation signal.
    With respect to the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the 
associated reduction in heater capacity for the control room 
pressurization system filter trains, only the heater wattage/
capacity is being changed. Overall system operation and required 
performance is not being changed. No other plant system is affected 
by this change (except for the beneficial effect of the reduced heat 
load on the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C system), and no new 
system operation or required response is introduced by this change.
    Based on the above, the proposed amendment will 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.
    Proposed TS 3.7.20 includes a provision for restoring an 
inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment cooling train to Operable 
status within a reasonable but required Completion Time, which is 
consistent with the many other Technical Specifications for systems 
having independent and redundant trains (based on the relatively low 
risk associated with such a condition when single-failure protection 
is momentarily not ensured for the affected system). In this case, 
however, if availability of the Class 1E electrical equipment 
supported by the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C system is 
considered a margin of safety, the reduction in such a margin of 
safety for when a Class 1E electrical equipment cooling train is 
declared inoperable is minimized due to the calculated capability of 
one A/C train to provide adequate cooling to both trains of Class 1E 
electrical equipment during normal and accident conditions (with 
proposed Condition A and its Required Actions in effect). The 
provision for restoring an inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment 
cooling train to Operable status within a reasonable but required 
Completion Time also allows a reasonable period to perform 
preventive and corrective maintenance, thus increasing or 
maintaining system reliability.
    With respect to the Class 1E electrical equipment and the area 
temperatures assumed for this equipment during normal conditions, 
that associated margin of safety is maintained by the requirement 
under proposed TS 3.7.20 (for when one Class 1E electrical equipment 
A/C train is declared inoperable) to periodically verify that the 
area/room temperatures are maintained within the specified limit (of 
less than or equal to 90[emsp14][deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit]). In 
addition, the capability to remain at or below the post-accident 
temperature limit (of 104[emsp14][deg]F) for the Class 1E electrical 
equipment rooms will continue to be met, even with only one Class 1E 
electrical equipment A/C train OPERABLE, (providing the applicable 
Required Action under proposed TS 3.7.20 is met).
    It should also be noted that the addition of TS 3.7.20 has no 
impact on calculated releases and doses for postulated accidents, or 
on ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] actuation or RPS [Reactor 
Protection System]/ESFAS protection setpoints/limiting safety system 
settings, or any other parameter that could affect a margin of 
safety.
    For the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the associated 
reduction in heater capacity for the charcoal filters in the control 
room pressurization trains, it should be noted that even with the 
proposed reduction, the minimum required heating capacity (for 
ensuring an influent air humidity of less than or equal to 70% 
relative humidity for the filter absorber train) would still be more 
than met. Thus, for this proposed change, there is no significant 
reduction in the margin of safety in regard to required 
pressurization train performance for the control room emergency 
ventilation system.
    Therefore, based on the above, the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 31196]]

    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    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\ 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.
    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.

[[Page 31197]]

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 11th day of June, 2018.

    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[dash]Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with
                            information: Supporting the standing of a
                            potential party identified by name and
                            address; and describing the need for the
                            information in order for the potential party
                            to participate meaningfully in an
                            adjudicatory proceeding.
60.......................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                            intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
                            of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
                            formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                            (+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
                            +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20.......................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
                            staff informs the requester of the staff's
                            determination whether the request for access
                            provides a reasonable basis to believe
                            standing can be established and shows need
                            for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
                            to the proceeding whose interest independent
                            of the proceeding would be harmed by the
                            release of the information.) If NRC staff
                            makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
                            likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
                            document processing (preparation of
                            redactions or review of redacted documents).
25.......................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                            likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                            petitioner/requester to file a motion
                            seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
                            denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
                            access determination with the presiding
                            officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
                            other designated officer, as appropriate).
                            If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
                            deadline for any party to the proceeding
                            whose interest independent of the proceeding
                            would be harmed by the release of the
                            information to file a motion seeking a
                            ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                            access.
30.......................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                            reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.......................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                            need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                            complete information processing and file
                            motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                            Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                            licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
                            for SUNSI.
A........................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                            officer or other designated officer decision
                            on motion for protective order for access to
                            sensitive information (including schedule
                            for providing access and submission of
                            contentions) or decision reversing a final
                            adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3....................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
                            Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
                            consistent with decision issuing the
                            protective order.
A + 28...................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                            development depends upon access to SUNSI.
                            However, if more than 25 days remain between
                            the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
                            the information and the deadline for filing
                            all other contentions (as established in the
                            notice of 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. 2018-12919 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P