[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62609-62617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0267]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit
No. 2; and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 3, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 4, 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 December 14, 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-2018-0267. 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.
[[Page 62610]]
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0267, 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-2018-0267.
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-2018-0267, 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
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
[[Page 62611]]
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 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
[[Page 62612]]
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]">MSHD.[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.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A658.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise license conditions and approve changes to plant
modifications evaluated using fire probabilistic risk assessment
methods and approaches that have been accepted previously in Amendment
No. 199 or that have been accepted for another nuclear power plant
station and approve performance-based alternatives for Chapter 3,
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 (10 CFR
50.48(c)(2)(vii)), specifically, NFPA 805, Section 3.3.4, ``Insulation
Materials,'' and NFPA 805, Section 3.3.5.1, ``Wiring above Suspended
Ceilings.''
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 purpose of this amendment is to provide updated information
associated with the modifications that were described and committed
to in the VCSNS [Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station] License Amendment
Request and subsequently approved by the NRC. This amendment also
provides updated information related to Nuclear Safety Compliance
Strategies (including recovery actions). The NRC considers that NFPA
805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Operation of VCSNS in accordance with the proposed amendment
does not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed
amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as
described in the VCSNS Safety Analysis Report (SAR), nor does it
adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of
the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of accidents described and
evaluated in the SAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely
alter safety-related systems nor affect the way in which safety-
related systems perform their functions as required by the accident
analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of
performing the associated design functions.
Therefore, this 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.
Implementation of the new risk-informed, performance-based fire
protection licensing basis, with the revised modifications and
Nuclear Safety Compliance Strategies complies with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance
contained in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.205, and does not result in new
or different kinds of accidents. The requirements in NFPA 805
address only fire protection and the impacts of fire effects on the
plant have been evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve
new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or
different kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the SAR.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment has been evaluated to ensure that risk
and safety margins are maintained within acceptable limits. The risk
evaluations for plant changes
[[Page 62613]]
in relation to the potential for reducing a safety margin, were
measured quantitatively for acceptability using the delta risk
(i.e., change in core damage frequency and change in large early
release frequency) criteria from Section 5.3.5, ``Acceptance
Criteria,'' of Nuclear Energy Institute 04-02, ``Guidance for
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-based Fire Protection
Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' as well as the guidance contained
in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering
evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling
calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the
performance-based methods of NFPA 805 do not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Shearon Harris or HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties,
North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (Robinson or RNP), Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 19, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated June 5, 2018; October 15, 2018; and November 6, 2018.
Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML17292A040, ML18156A209, ML18288A276, and ML18310A131, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The supplement dated June 5,
2018, contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI). The NRC staff previously made a proposed determination that
the license amendment request dated October 19, 2017, involves no
significant hazards consideration (83 FR 166; January 2, 2018).
Subsequently, by letter dated November 6, 2018, the licensee provided
additional information that expanded the scope of the amendment request
as originally noticed. Accordingly, this notice supersedes the previous
notice in its entirety. The proposed amendment request consists of five
changes that would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to support
the allowance of Duke Energy to self-perform core reload design and
safety analyses. These changes would (1) add the NRC-approved COPERNIC
Topical Report (TR) to the list of TRs for Shearon Harris and Robinson
and revise the peak fuel centerline temperature equation in Robinson TS
2.1.1.2 and Shearon Harris TS 2.1.1.b to be the equation used by
COPERNIC; (2) relocate several TS parameters to the Core Operating
Limits Reports for Shearon Harris and Robinson; (3) revise the Robinson
TS moderator temperature coefficient maximum upper limit, (4) revise
the Sharon Harris TS definition of shutdown margin consistent with
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-248, Revision
0 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040611010), ``Revise Shutdown Margin
Definition for Stuck Rod Exception''; and (5) revise the Robinson and
Shearon Harris power distribution limits limiting condition for
operation actions and surveillance requirements, as well as the
Robinson Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Table 3.3.1-1 to
allow operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC-NE-2011-P
[proprietary], ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating
Limits of Westinghouse Reactors,'' methodology. (A redacted version,
designated as DPC-NE-2011, is publicly-available under ADAMS Accession
No. ML16125A420.)
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.
COPERNIC
The proposed change adds a topical report for an NRC-reviewed
and approved fuel performance code to the list of topical reports in
RNP and HNP Technical Specifications (TS), which is administrative
in nature and has no impact on a plant configuration or system
performance relied upon to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The list of topical reports in the TS used to develop the core
operating limits does not impact either the initiation of an
accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
The proposed change also revises a limit on peak fuel centerline
temperature in the RNP and HNP TS that is based on a NRC reviewed
and approved fuel performance code, and does not require a physical
change to plant systems, structures, or components. Plant operations
and analysis will continue to be in accordance with the licensing
basis. The peak fuel centerline temperature limit provides
protection to the fuel and is consistent with the safety analysis.
Relocate TS Parameters to the COLR
The proposed change relocates certain cycle-specific core
operating limits from the RNP and HNP TS to the Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR). The cycle-specific values must be calculated
using the NRC approved methodologies listed in the COLR section of
the TS. Because the parameter limits are determined using the NRC
methodologies, they will continue to be within the limit assumed in
the accident analysis. As a result, neither the probability nor the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
RNP MTC TS Change
The proposed change revises the RNP Technical Specification
maximum upper Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) limit.
Revision of the MTC limit does not affect the performance of any
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident.
There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
HNP TSTF-248
The proposed change revises the HNP Technical Specification
definition of Shutdown Margin (SDM) consistent with existing NRC-
approved definition. The proposed revision to the SDM definition
will result in analytical flexibility for determining SDM. Revision
of the SDM definition does not affect the performance of any
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident.
There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
DPC-NE-2011-P TS Changes
The proposed change revises the RNP and HNP TS to allow
operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC-NE-2011-P
methodology. The DPC-NE-2011-P methodology has already been approved
by the NRC for use at RNP and HNP. Revision of the TS to align with
the NRC-approved methodology does not affect the performance of any
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident.
There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of
[[Page 62614]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
COPERNIC
The proposed change adds a topical report for an NRC-reviewed
and approved fuel performance code to the list of topical reports in
HNP and RNP TS, which is administrative in nature and has no impact
on a plant configuration or on system performance. The proposed
change updates the list of NRC-approved topical reports used to
develop the core operating limits. There is no change to the
parameters within which the plant is normally operated. The
possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.
The proposed change also revises a limit on peak fuel centerline
temperature in the RNP and HNP TS that is based on a NRC reviewed
and approved fuel performance code, and does not require physical
changes to plant systems, structures, or components. Specifying peak
fuel centerline temperature ensures that the fuel design limits are
met. Operations and analysis will continue to be in compliance with
NRC regulations. Revising the peak fuel centerline temperature limit
does not affect any accident initiators that would create a new
accident.
Relocate TS Parameters to the COLR
The proposed change relocates certain cycle-specific core
operating limits from the RNP and HNP TS to the COLR. No new or
different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the
changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate
any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analyses. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analyses assumptions and current plant operating practice.
RNP MTC TS Change
The proposed change revises the RNP Technical Specification
maximum upper MTC limit. The proposed change does not physically
alter the plant; that is, no new or different type of equipment will
be installed. Therefore the proposed change could also not initiate
an equipment malfunction that would result in a new or different
type of accident from any previously evaluated. This change does not
create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable
during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated.
HNP TSTF-248
Revising the HNP Technical Specification definition of SDM would
not require revision to any SDM boron calculations. Rather, it would
afford the analytical flexibility for determining SDM for a
particular circumstance. The proposed change does not physically
alter the plant; that is, no new or different type of equipment will
be installed. Therefore the proposed change could also not initiate
an equipment malfunction that would result in a new or different
type of accident from any previously evaluated. This change does not
create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable
during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated.
DPC-NE-2011-P TS Changes
The proposed change revises the RNP and HNP TS to allow
operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC-NE-2011-P
methodology. The DPC-NE-2011-P methodology has already been approved
by the NRC for use at RNP and HNP. The proposed change does not
physically alter the plant, that is, no new or different type of
equipment will be installed. Therefore the proposed change could
also not initiate an equipment malfunction that would result in a
new or different type of accident from any previously evaluated.
Operating the reactor in accordance with the NRC-approved
methodology will ensure that the core will operate within safe
limits. This change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms
which are not identifiable during testing, and no new accident
precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
COPERNIC
The proposed change adds a topical report for an NRC-reviewed
and approved fuel performance code to the list of topical reports in
HNP and RNP TS, which is administrative in nature and does not amend
the cycle specific parameters presently required by the TS. The
individual TS continue to require operation of the plant within the
bounds of the limits specified in the COLR. The proposed change to
the list of analytical methods referenced in the COLR does not
impact the margin of safety.
The proposed change also revises a limit on peak fuel centerline
temperature in the RNP and HNP TS that is based on a NRC reviewed
and approved fuel performance code, and does not require physical
changes to plant systems, structures, or components. Plant
operations and analysis will continue to be in accordance with the
licensing basis. Revising the peak fuel centerline temperature limit
defined by the NRC reviewed and approved fuel performance code will
continue to ensure that applicable design and safety limits are
satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to
perform their design functions and thereby margin of safety is not
reduced.
Relocate TS Parameters to the COLR
The proposed change relocates certain cycle-specific core
operating limits from the RNP and HNP TS to the COLR. This change
will have no effect on the margin of safety. The relocated cycle-
specific parameters will continue to be calculated using NRC-
approved methodologies and will provide the same margin of safety as
the values currently located in the TS.
RNP MTC TS Change
The proposed change revises the RNP Technical Specification
maximum upper MTC limit. The MTC limit change does not impact the
reliability of the fission product barriers to function.
Radiological dose to plant operators or to the public will not
be impacted as a result of the proposed change. The current Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 analyses of record
remain bounding with the proposed change to the maximum upper MTC
limit. Therefore, all of the applicable acceptance criteria continue
to be met for each of the analyses with the revised maximum upper
MTC limit.
HNP TSTF-248
The proposed revision to the HNP Technical Specification
definition of SDM does not impact the reliability of the fission
product barriers to function. Radiological dose to plant operators
or to the public will not be impacted as a result of the proposed
change. Adequate SDM will continue to be ensured for all operational
conditions.
DPC-NE-2011-P TS Changes
The proposed change revises the RNP and HNP TS to allow
operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC-NE-2011-P
methodology. As a portion of the overall Duke Energy methodology for
cycle reload safety analyses, DPC-NE-2011-P has already been
approved by the NRC for use at RNP and HNP. The proposed change will
continue to ensure that applicable design and safety limits are
satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to
perform their design functions. Operation of the reactor in
accordance with the DPC-NE-2011-P methodology will ensure the margin
of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station (North Anna), Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa
County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18198A133.
[[Page 62615]]
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements
to add Framatome Topical Report EMF-2328(P)(A), Revision 0, ``PWR Small
Break [loss-of-coolant accident] LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5
Based,'' as supplemented by the North Anna-specific application report
ANP-3467P, Revision 0, ``North Anna Fuel-Vendor Independent Small Break
LOCA Analysis Licensing Report,'' to the list of methodologies approved
for reference in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) in TS 5.6.5.b
at North Anna, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Framatome Topical Report EMF-
2328(P)(A), as supplemented by the North Anna-specific application
report, replaces two existing COLR references for the current
Westinghouse Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model. The amendments would
also remove one obsolete COLR reference in TS 5.6.5.b that supported
use of the Advanced Mark-BW (AMBW) fuel product, since the AMBW fuel
product is not planned to be used in future North Anna cores.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS 5.6.5.b permits the use of an NRC-
approved methodology for analysis of the Small Break Loss of Coolant
Accident (SBLOCA) to determine if North Anna Power Station (NAPS)
Units 1 and 2 continue to meet the applicable design and safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change to the list of
NRC-approved methodologies in TS 5.6.5.b has no direct impact upon
plant operation or configuration. The list of methodologies in TS
5.6.5.b does not impact either the initiation of an accident or the
mitigation of its consequences.
The results of the revised SBLOCA transient analysis and
existing pre-transient oxidation limits demonstrate that NAPS Units
1 and 2 continue to satisfy the 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1-3) Emergency Core
Cooling System performance acceptance criteria using an NRC-approved
evaluation model.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or
different accident due to credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not previously considered.
There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is
normally operated, and thus, the possibility of a new or different
type of accident is not created.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No design basis or safety limits are exceeded or altered by this
change. Approved methodologies have been used to ensure that the
plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety
analysis acceptance criteria.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
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 RidsOgcMailCenter.
[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
[[Page 62616]]
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, on November 16, 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 62617]]
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. 2018-25452 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P