[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55514-55521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18085]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2020-0181]
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 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 and Beaver Valley
Power Station, Unit 2. 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 October 8, 2020. A request for a
hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by November
9, 2020. 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
September 18, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0181. Address
questions about NRC 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: Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN-7-
[[Page 55515]]
A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
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-2020-0181, facility name, unit
number(s), docket number(s), 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0181.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0181, facility name, unit
number(s), docket number(s), 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
https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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 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
[[Page 55516]]
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 (ET) 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
[[Page 55517]]
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 https://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., ET, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``cancel'' when the
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access
any publicly-available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 28, 2019, as supplemented by
letter dated June 15, 2020. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Package Accession No. ML19240A925 and ADAMS Accession No.
ML20168A980, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendments would revise the current licensing basis for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, regarding high energy line
breaks (HELBs) outside of the containment building. The license
amendment request (LAR) includes proposed revisions to the updated
final safety analysis report (UFSAR) in support of the proposed revised
HELB licensing basis. The proposed change would establish normal plant
systems, protected service water, and/or the standby shutdown facility
as the assured mitigation path following a HELB.
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.
Justification: A High Energy Line Break (HELB) does not
constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB is a design
criterion that is required to be considered in the design of
structures, systems, or components and is not a design basis
accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is
appropriately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a
HELB will occur or increase the consequences from a HELB. This LAR
provides an overview of the HELB reanalysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made as a result of the HELB reanalysis,
and the proposed mitigation strategies which now includes normal
plant equipment, the protected service water (PSW) system, and the
standby shutdown facility (SSF).
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increase overall safety
of the plant.
The PSW and SSF Systems are designed as standby systems for use
under emergency conditions. With the exception of testing, the
systems are not normally pressurized. The duration of the test
configuration is short as compared to the total plant (unit)
operating time. Due to the combination of the infrequent testing and
short duration of the test, pipe ruptures are not postulated or
evaluated for these systems.
Other systems have also been excluded based on the infrequency
of those systems operating at high energy conditions. Consideration
of HELBs is excluded (both breaks and cracks) if a high energy
system operates less than 1 [percent] of the total unit operating
time such as emergency feedwater or reactor building spray or if the
operating time of a system at high energy conditions is less than
approximately 2 [percent] of total system operating time such as low
pressure injection. This is acceptable based on the very low
probability of a HELB occurring during the limited operating time of
these systems at high energy conditions. Gas and oil systems have
been evaluated, since these systems also possess limited energy.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW system or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
As noted in Section 3.4 [of the LAR], Oconee Nuclear Station
plans to adopt the provisions of [NRC] Branch Technical Position
(BTP) Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) 3-1 [Revision 2 of BTP MEB
3-1, ``Postulated Rupture Locations in Fluid System Piping Inside
and Outside Containment,'' was provided in NRC Generic Letter 87-11,
``Relaxation in Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Rupture Requirements,''
ADAMS Accession No. ML031150493
[[Page 55518]]
regarding the elimination of arbitrary intermediate breaks for
analyzed lines that include seismic loading. Guidance in the BTP MEB
3-1 is used to define crack locations in analyzed lines that include
seismic loading. Adoption of this provision allows Oconee Nuclear
Station to focus attention to those high stress areas that have a
higher potential for catastrophic pipe failure. In absence of
additional guidance, Duke Energy uses NUREG/CR-2913 [``Two-Phase Jet
Loads,'' ADAMS Accession No. ML073510076] to define the zone of
influence for breaks and critical cracks that meet the range of
operating parameters listed in NUREG/CR-2913. NUREG/CR-2913 provides
an analytical model for predicting two-phase, water jet loadings on
axisymmetric targets that did not exist prior in the Giambusso/
Schwencer requirements.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequence 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.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated
accident. HELB is a design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures, systems, or components and
is not a design basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately considered in the UFSAR and
Duke Energy has concluded that the proposed changes do not increase
the possibility that a HELB will create a new or different kind of
accident. This LAR provides an overview of HELB analysis,
descriptions of station modifications that will be made as a result
of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed mitigation strategies which
now include normal plant equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increases overall safety
of the plant.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; 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.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated
accident. HELB is a design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures, systems, or components and
is not a design basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately considered in the UFSAR and
Duke Energy has concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a
reduction in the margin of safety. This LAR provides an overview of
the HELB analysis, descriptions of station modifications that will
be made as a result of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed
mitigation strategies which now include normal plant equipment, the
PSW system, and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increases overall safety
of the plant.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
The changes described above provide a HELB licensing basis and
increase overall plant safety margins. The changes have no effect on
limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings,
and safety limits specified in the technical specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2020. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML20177A271.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would revise Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2
(BVPS-2) Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.d, ``Provisions for SG [Steam
Generator] Tube Inspections,'' and Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3,
``Provisions for SG Tube Repair Methods,'' requirements related to
methods of inspection and service life for Alloy 800 steam generator
tubesheet sleeves.
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 Technical Specification changes do not modify
structures, systems or components of the plant, or affect plant
operations, design functions or analyses that verify the capability
of structures, systems or components to perform a design function.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not increase the
likelihood of a SG tube sleeve malfunction.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the
applicable American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code and, therefore, meet the design objectives
of the original SG tubing. The applied stresses and fatigue usage
for the sleeves are bounded by the limits established in the ASME
Code. Mechanical testing has shown that the structural strength of
sleeves under normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions
provides margin to the acceptance limits. These acceptance limits
bound the most limiting (three times normal operating pressure
differential) burst margin recommended by NRC Regulatory Guide
1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor]
Steam Generator Tubes.''
[[Page 55519]]
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve depth-based structural limit
is determined using NRC guidance and the pressure stress equation of
ASME Code, Section III with additional margin added to account for
the configuration of long axial cracks. Calculations show that a
depth-based limit of 45 percent through-wall degradation is
acceptable. However, Technical Specifications 5.5.5.2.c.2 and
5.5.5.2.c.3 provide additional margin by requiring an Alloy 800
sleeved tube to be plugged on detection of any flaw in the sleeve or
in the pressure boundary portion of the original tube wall in the
sleeve to tube joint.
Degradation of the original tube adjacent to the nickel band of
an Alloy 800 sleeve installed in the tubesheet, regardless of depth,
would not prevent the sleeve from satisfying design requirements.
Thus, flaw detection capabilities within the original tube adjacent
to the sleeve nickel band are a defense in-depth measure and are not
necessary in order to justify continued operation of the sleeved
tube.
Evaluation of repaired steam generator tube testing and analysis
indicates that there are no detrimental effects on the leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeve or sleeved tube assembly from reactor coolant
system flow, primary or secondary coolant chemistries, thermal
conditions or transients, or pressure conditions that may be
experienced at BVPS-2.
The consequences of a hypothetical failure of the leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeve and tube assembly are bounded by the current steam
generator tube rupture analysis described in the BVPS-2 Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report because the total number of plugged
steam generator tubes (including flow area reduction associated with
installed sleeves) is required to be consistent with accident
analysis assumptions. The sleeve and tube assembly leakage during
plant operation would be minimal and well within the allowable
Technical Specification leakage limits and accident analysis
assumptions.
Implementation of this proposed amendment would have no
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of the sleeve to perform
its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not create any
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design or licensing bases and does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the
applicable ASME Code, and therefore meet the objectives of the
original steam generator tubing. Therefore, the only credible
failure modes for the sleeve and tube are to leak or rupture, which
have already been evaluated.
The continued integrity of the installed sleeve and tube
assembly is periodically verified as required by the Technical
Specifications, and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the sleeve to tube joint.
Implementation of this proposed amendment would have no
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of the sleeve to perform
its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of the proposed Technical Specification changes
would not affect a design basis or safety limit or reduce the margin
of safety. The repair of degraded steam generator tubes with leak-
limiting Alloy 800 sleeves restores the structural integrity of the
degraded tube under normal operating and postulated accident
conditions. The reduction in reactor coolant system flow due to the
addition of Alloy 800 sleeves is not significant because the
cumulative effect of repaired (sleeved) and plugged tubes will
continue to allow reactor coolant flow to be greater than the flow
limit established in the Technical Specification limiting condition
for operation 3.4.1.
The design safety factors utilized for the sleeves are
consistent with the safety factors in the [ASME] Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code used in the original steam generator design. Tubes with
sleeves would also be subject to the same safety factors as the
original tubes that are described in the performance criteria for
steam generator tube integrity in the existing Technical
Specifications. With the proposed Technical Specification changes,
the sleeve and portions of the installed sleeve and tube assembly
that represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary will continue
to be monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the leak-limiting sleeve and tube assembly.
Use of the previously identified design criteria and design
verification testing ensures that the margin of safety is not
significantly different from the original steam generator tubes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Rick C. Giannantonio, General Counsel,
Energy Harbor Corp., 168 E. Market Street, Akron, OH 44308-2014.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request 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 requestor 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 requestor'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
[[Page 55520]]
versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to
provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25
days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within five 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 requestor 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 five 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\ Requestors 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: August 13, 2020.
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 requestor 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/requestor 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).
[[Page 55521]]
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of opportunity to request a hearing
and petition for leave to intervene), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-18085 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P