[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55561-55568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22576]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0227]
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 two amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for both Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3. For
each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve
no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request
[[Page 55562]]
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 6, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 7, 2019. Any potential party as
defined in Section 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 November 16, 2018.
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-2018-0227. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0227, 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-2018-0227.
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 ``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-2018-0227, 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
[[Page 55563]]
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 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
[[Page 55564]]
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 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, 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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, York County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18150A387.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow
continued operation with two safety relief valves/safety valves (SRVs/
SVs) out-of-service (OOS) and to increase the reactor coolant system
pressure safety limit. The proposed changes are based on taking credit
for the additional SV that was installed on each unit per the Extended
Power Uprate amendments for PBAPS Unit 2 and Unit 3, dated March 21,
2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16034A372), and a re-evaluation of the
transient pressure analysis at the current licensed thermal power
authorized by the Measurement Uncertainty Recapture uprate amendments
dated November 15, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17286A013).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would revise TS Section 3.4.3 to lower the
required number of operable Safety Relief Valves (SRVs) and Safety
Valves (SVs) from a total of 13 to 12, and raise the Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) Safety Limit (SL) from 1,325 to 1,340 psig [pounds per
square inch gauge]. Analysis confirms that raising the number of
out-of-service SRVs/SVs from one to two does not have an adverse
impact on (1) the overpressure protection for the reactor pressure
vessel [RPV], (2) the ability of High Pressure Coolant Injection
(HPCI), Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC), Standby Liquid
Control (SLC) and Control Rod Drive (CRD) safety systems to perform
their design basis requirements, and (3) the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis. The analysis
also confirms that for the peak vessel pressure in the overpressure
event, there is still over 20 psi [pounds per square inch] margin to
the American Society of Mechanical Engineer[s] (ASME) code
overpressure limit. This margin also includes the penalty due to the
TRACG statistical pressure adder required to be included in the
analysis results, thereby
[[Page 55565]]
providing additional analytical margin. Raising the dome pressure
safety limit by 15 psi from 1,325 to 1,340 psig [pounds per square
inch gauge] still provides sufficient margin (approximately 5 psi)
for the peak pressure vessel pressure and thus continues to support
the ASME code overpressure limit requirements. Compliance with the
ASME upset code requirements for vessel overpressure protection is
still ensured with this change to the dome pressure safety limit
(1,340 psig) to support operation with two SRVOOS.
This analysis covers the plant response to the design basis
accidents, Anticipated Operational Occurrence (AOO) events and
Special Events. The proposed change does not require any new or
unusual operator actions. The proposed change does not introduce any
new failure modes that could result in a new or different accident.
The SRVs and SVs are not being modified or operated differently and
will continue to operate to meet the design basis requirements for
RPV overpressure protection. The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which the RPV overpressure protection system is operated
and functions and thus, there is no significant impact on reactor
operation. There is no change being made to safety limits or
limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant
safety as a result of the proposed change.
For PBAPS, the limiting overpressure AOO event is the main steam
isolation valve closure with scram on high flux (MSIVF). The PBAPS
ATWS [Anticipated Transient Without Scram] Special Event analysis
considered the limiting cases for RPV overpressure and is analyzed
under two cases: (1) Main Steam Isolation Valve Closure (MSIVC) and
(2) Pressure Regulator Failure Open (PRFO). These events were
analyzed under the proposed conditions and it was confirmed that the
existing analyses remain bounding for the condition of adding a
second SRV/SV Out-of-Service.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would revise TS Section 3.4.3 to lower the
required number of operable SRVs and SVs from a total of 13 to 12,
and raise the RCS SL from 1,325 to 1,340 psig. The RPV overpressure
protection capability of the 12 operable SRVs and SVs is adequate to
ensure the ASME code allowable peak pressure limits are not
exceeded. The SRVs and SVs are not being modified or operated
differently and will continue to operate to meet the design basis
requirements for RPV overpressure protection. The proposed change
does not introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new
or different accident. The proposed change does not alter the manner
in which the RPV overpressure protection system is operated and
functions and thus, there is no new failure mechanisms for the
overpressure protection system. The plant response to the design
basis accidents, AOO events and Special Events remains bounded by
existing analyses. These events were analyzed under the proposed
conditions and it was confirmed that the existing analyses remain
bounding for the condition of adding a second SRV/SV Out-of-Service
at the current licensed thermal power.
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 involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of setpoints for
the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed change does not change the setpoints at which the
protective actions are initiated. The proposed change would revise
TS Section 3.4.3 to lower the required number of operable SRVs and
SVs and raise the RCS SL from 1,325 to 1,340 psig. The RPV
overpressure protection capability of the 12 operable SRVs and SVs
is adequate to ensure the ASME code allowable peak pressure limits
are not exceeded. The plant response to the design basis accidents,
AOO events and Special Events remains bounded by existing analyses.
These events were analyzed under the proposed conditions and it was
confirmed that for the peak vessel pressure in the overpressure
event, there is still over 20 psi margin to the American Society of
Mechanical Engineer (ASME) code overpressure limit. This margin also
includes the penalty due to the TRACG statistical pressure adder
required to be included in the analysis results, thereby providing
additional analytical margin. Raising the dome pressure safety limit
by 15 psi from 1,325 to 1,340 psig still provides sufficient margin
for the peak pressure vessel pressure and thus continues to support
the ASME code overpressure limit requirements. Compliance with the
ASME upset code requirements for vessel overpressure protection is
still ensured with this change to the dome pressure safety limit
(1,340 psig) to support operation with two SRVOOS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
From the above analysis, the licensee concluded that the proposed
amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c)(1)-(3), and accordingly, a
finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis of 10 CFR
50.92(c)(1)-(3). Concerning the standard in 50.92(c)(3) (concerning
whether a proposed amendment would involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety), the NRC staff elected to use its own analysis in
place of the licensee's. The staff's analysis of 50.92(c)(3) is below.
The margin of safety is established through (1) the establishment of
setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an
event, (2) the design of the plant structures, systems, and components,
and (3) the parameters within which the plant is operated. The proposed
change does not change the setpoints at which the protective actions
are initiated. The proposed design change to lower the required number
of operable SRVs and SVs does not significantly reduce the margin of
safety because the RPV overpressure protection capability of the 12
operable SRVs and SVs is adequate to ensure the ASME code allowable
peak pressure limits are not exceeded.
The plant response to the design basis accidents, AAOs, and Special
Events remains bounded by existing analyses.
These events were analyzed under the proposed conditions and it was
confirmed that for the peak vessel pressure in the overpressure event,
there is still over 20 psi margin before reaching the ASME code
overpressure limit. The proposed increase of the dome pressure safety
limit from 1,325 to 1,340 psig still provides sufficient margin for the
allowed peak vessel pressure and, therefore, continues to support the
ASME code overpressure limit requirements.
Compliance with the ASME code requirements for upset conditions of
vessel overpressure protection is still ensured with this change to the
dome pressure safety limit to support operation with two SRVs out of
service.
Therefore, because the proposed change does not affect the
setpoints at which equipment relied upon to respond to an event, and
the design changes and plant parameters do not exceed the ASME code
allowable pressure limits, the change does not ``[i]nvolve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety'' under 10 CFR 50.92(c)(3).
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis, and on the NRC
staff's additional analysis of 50.92(c)(3), 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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
[[Page 55566]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18239A355.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to support the
proposed compensatory measures for operation of the Leading Edge Flow
Meter (LEFM) system at three separate intermediate power levels for an
indefinite period when the mass flow input to the core thermal power
calculation is from one, two, or three feedwater lines in check mode
with none in fail mode, and a fourth intermediate power level when not
more than one LEFM is in fail mode, and flow measurement is being
provided by the associated feedwater flow nozzle. The proposed changes
would allow operation at power levels commensurate with the
uncertainties in the measurement of core thermal power (CTP) and reduce
the magnitude of the required reactivity maneuver and plant power level
change for degradation of the LEFM system.
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, with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[T]he proposed change does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect system design or operation
and thus does not create any new accident initiators or increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Accident mitigation
systems are not affected and will function as designed.
The proposed change does not increase the licensed thermal power
level and will not cause the thermal power level at which the ECCS
have been analyzed in accordance with Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 to be
exceeded. All safety analyses continue to be bounded by the safety
analyses for the current licensed thermal power.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[T]he proposed change 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 operation at power
levels based on the uncertainties in the calculation of CTP for the
stated LEFM system conditions. Calculation of the uncertainty
associated with these plant conditions as well as existing plant
instrumentation and procedures ensure that the licensed thermal
power and the thermal power level at which the ECCS have been
analyzed in accordance with Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 will not be
exceeded. No new equipment or procedure changes are involved that
could add new accident initiators.
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.
[T]he proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Operation at power levels based on the uncertainties in the
calculation of CTP for the stated LEFM system conditions does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Calculation
of the uncertainties associated with the measurement of core thermal
power for these plant conditions as well as existing plant
instrumentation and procedures ensure that the licensed thermal
power and the thermal power level at which the ECCS have been
analyzed in accordance with Appendix K to 10 CFR 50 will not be
exceeded.
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: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation. Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
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 Deputy General Counsel
for Hearings 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
[[Page 55567]]
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 11th day of October 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-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
[[Page 55568]]
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. 2018-22576 Filed 11-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P