[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