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, 20493-20500 [2017-08896]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James G. Danna,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017–08842 Filed 5–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40–9083; NRC–2017–0106]
U.S. Army Installation Command
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: 10 CFR 2.206 request; receipt.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is giving notice that
by petition dated March 16, 2017, Dr.
Michael Reimer (the petitioner) has
requested that the NRC take action with
regard to facilities licensed under source
materials license SUC–1593. The
petitioner’s requests are included in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2017–0106 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0106. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• 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
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
16, 2017, the petitioner requested that
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
the NRC take action with regard to the
U.S. Army Installation Command
(ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308).
The petitioner requested that the NRC
reconsider its approval of License SUC–
1593 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16343A161) for possession of
depleted uranium at various military
installations in the United States.
As the basis for this request, the
petitioner identified concerns about lack
of air sampling, inappropriateness of the
location and number of sediment
samples, and insufficient geologic
sampling procedures for sediment
collection for the licensed depleted
uranium that is located in radiation
controlled areas on the United States
Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area, one of
the facilities licensed under License
SUC–1593.
The request is being treated pursuant
to section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) of the
Commission’s regulations. The request
has been referred to the Director of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
As provided by 10 CFR 2.206,
appropriate action will be taken on this
petition within a reasonable time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
of April 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore Smith,
Acting Branch Chief, Materials
Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and
Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017–08843 Filed 5–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2017–0100]
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
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave
to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20493
considering approval of three
amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Duke Energy Progress,
LLC, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, and H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant Unit No. 2; Exelon
Generation Company, LLC and PSEG
Nuclear LLC, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3; and South
Carolina Electric & Gas Company and
South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Units 2 and 3. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes
to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Because each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain
access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
Comments must be filed by June
1, 2017. A request for a hearing must be
filed by July 3, 2017. Any potential
party as defined in § 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 May 12,
2017.
DATES:
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0100. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN–8–D36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
1927; email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
20494
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
II. Background
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–
0100, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for
this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0100.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–
0100, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 60day 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC’s
Public Document Room, located at One
White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed,
the Commission or a presiding officer
will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be
issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the
petition should specifically explain the
reasons why intervention should be
permitted with particular reference to
the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the petitioner; (2)
the nature of the petitioner’s right under
the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of
the petitioner’s property, financial, or
other interest in the proceeding; and (4)
the possible effect of any decision or
order that may be entered in the
proceeding on the petitioner’s interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f),
the petition must also set forth the
specific contentions which the
petitioner seeks to have litigated in the
proceeding. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the
issue of law or fact to be raised or
controverted. In addition, the petitioner
must provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 by July 3, 2017. 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, Federallyrecognized 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, any
motion or other document filed in the
proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition, 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 EFiling 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 Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may not
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20495
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
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 Web site 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 Web site 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 on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the document on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can
obtain access to the documents via the
E-Filing system.
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
20496
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
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 Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing stating why there is good cause for
not filing electronically and requesting
authorization to continue to submit
documents in paper format. Such filings
must be submitted by: (1) First class
mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing adjudicatory
documents in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket, which is
available to the public at https://
adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission
or the presiding officer. If you do not
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate
as described above, click cancel when
the link requests certificates and you
will be automatically directed to the
NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly
available documents in a particular
hearing docket. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
personal phone numbers in their filings,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
November 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, 2016, and
November 10, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15323A351,
ML16278A080, and ML16315A286.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The NRC staff
previously made a proposed
determination that the license
amendment request dated November 19,
2015, involves no significant hazards
consideration (81 FR 19645; April 5,
2016). Subsequently, by letter dated
October 3, 2016, the licensee provided
additional information that expanded
the scope of the amendment request as
originally noticed. Accordingly, this
notice supersedes the previous notice in
its entirety. The amendment requests
plant-specific review and approval of
reactor core design methodology reports
DPC–NE–3008–P, Revision 0, ‘‘ThermalHydraulic Models for Transient
Analysis,’’ and DPC–NE–3009–P,
Revision 0, ‘‘FSAR/UFSAR [Final Safety
Analysis Report/Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report] Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology,’’ for adoption
into the HNP and RNP Technical
Specifications. In the supplement dated
October 3, 2016, the licensee added the
request for the review and approval of
DPC–NE–3009–P, Revision 0.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request review and
approval of DPC–NE–3008–P, Revision 0,
‘‘Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient
Analysis,’’ and DPC–NE–3009–P, Revision 0,
‘‘FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology’’ to be applied to
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP)
and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(RNP). The benchmark calculations
performed confirm the accuracy of the codes
and models. The proposed use of this
methodology does not affect the performance
of any equipment used to mitigate the
consequences of an analyzed accident. There
is no impact on the source term or pathways
assumed in accidents previously assumed.
No analysis assumptions are violated and
there are no adverse effects on the factors that
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the
result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request review and
approval of DPC–NE–3008–P, Revision 0,
‘‘Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient
Analysis,’’ and DPC–NE–3009–P, Revision 0,
‘‘FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology’’ to be applied to
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP)
and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(RNP). It does not change any system
functions or maintenance activities. The
change does not physically alter the plant,
that is, no new or different type of equipment
will be installed. The software is not
installed in any plant equipment, and
therefore the software is incapable of
initiating an equipment malfunction that
would result in a new or different type of
accident from any previously evaluated. The
proposed methodology and safety analysis
assumptions ensure that the core will operate
within safe limits. This change does not
create new failure modes or mechanisms
which are not identifiable during testing, and
no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following an accident.
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the
reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed changes request review
and approval of DPC–NE–3008–P, Revision
0, ‘‘Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient
Analysis,’’ and DPC–NE–3009–P, Revision 0,
‘‘FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology’’ to be applied to
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP)
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
(RNP). As a portion of the overall Duke
Energy methodology for cycle reload safety
analyses, DPC–NE–3008–P will be used in
thermal-hydraulic transient analyses and
DPC–NE–3009–P will support the
performance of FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15
transient analysis. As with the existing
methodologies, the Duke Energy
methodologies will continue to ensure (a) the
acceptability of analytical limits under
normal, transient, and accident conditions,
and (b) that all applicable design and safety
limits are satisfied such that the fission
product barriers will continue to perform
their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B.
Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron
Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte,
NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.
Beasley.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: February
17, 2017. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17048A444.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications to implement a
measurement uncertainty recapture
power uprate. Specifically, the
amendment would authorize an
increase in the maximum licensed
thermal power level from 3,951
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4,016 MWt,
which is an increase of approximately
1.66 percent.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
Response: No, the proposed increase in
power level does not significantly increase
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not affect system
design or operation and thus do not create
any new accident initiators or increase the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated. All accident mitigation systems
will function as designed, and all
performance requirements for these systems
have been evaluated and were found
acceptable.
The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS)
components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor
internals, control rod drive housings, piping
and supports, and recirculation pumps)
remain within their applicable structural
limits and will continue to perform their
intended design functions during normal and
accident conditions. Thus, there is no
increase in the probability of a structural
failure of these components.
The balance of plant systems and
components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue
to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability
of a failure of these components. The safety
relief valves and containment isolation
valves meet design sizing requirements at the
uprated power level. Because the integrity of
the plant will not be affected by operation at
the uprated condition, EGC [Exelon
Generation Company] has concluded that all
structures, systems, and components
required to mitigate a transient remain
capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
All safety analyses have either been
performed at 102% of Current Licensed
Thermal Power (CLTP) and therefore bound
the proposed uprate or have been subject to
plant-specific analyses at a power level equal
to or greater than the proposed uprate. The
results demonstrate that acceptance criteria
of the applicable analyses continue to be met
at the uprated conditions. The analyses
performed to assess the effects of mass and
energy releases remain valid. The source
terms used to assess radiological
consequences have been reviewed and
determined to bound operation at the uprated
condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No, the proposed increase in
power level does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed
changes. All systems, structures, and
components previously required for the
mitigation of a transient remain capable of
fulfilling their intended design functions.
The proposed changes have no adverse
effects on any safety-related system or
component and do not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety-related
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20497
system. No new equipment or procedure
changes are involved that could add new
accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No, the proposed increase in
power level does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Operation at the uprated power condition
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. Analyses of the primary
fission product barriers have concluded that
relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both
from the standpoint of the integrity of the
primary fission product barrier, and from the
standpoint of compliance with the required
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all
evaluations have been performed using
methods that have either been reviewed or
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: October
27, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16301A385.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
request proposes a change to Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
Tier 2* information to specify the
supplemental requirement of American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
N690–1994, ‘‘American National
Standard Specification for the Design,
Fabrication, and Erection of Steel
Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear
Facilities’’ (AISC N690–1994), Section
Q1.26.2.2, ‘‘Partial-Penetration Welds,’’
for the demonstration of sufficient
strength and quality of the carbon steel
embedment plate coupler welds to be
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
20498
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
credited as justification for the
determination that the installed coupler
welds are capable of performing their
intended design function. The requested
amendment proposes a change to Tier
2* information. This submittal requests
approval of the license amendment
necessary to implement these changes.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how
evaluation of coupler strength, and by
extension, weld strength and quality are used
to demonstrate the capacity of partial joint
penetrate on (PJP) welds with fillet weld
reinforcement joining weldable couplers to
carbon steel embedment plates as being able
to perform their intended design function in
lieu of satisfying the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) N690–1994,
Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for nondestructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent
weld populations. The proposed change does
not affect the operation of any systems or
equipment that initiate an analyzed accident
or alter any structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events.
The change has no adverse effect on the
design function of the mechanical couplers
or the SSCs to which the mechanical
couplers are welded. The probabilities of the
accidents evaluated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not
affected. The change does not impact the
support, design, or operation of mechanical
or fluid systems. The change does not impact
the support, design, or operation of any
safety-related structures. There is no change
to plant systems or the response of systems
to postulated accident conditions. There is
no change to the predicted radioactive
releases due to normal operation or
postulated accident conditions. The plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor
does the proposed change create any new
accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested 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 change describes how
evaluation of coupler strength, and by
extension, weld strength and quality are used
to demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds
with fillet weld reinforcement joining
weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment
plates as being able to perform their design
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690–
1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for nondestructive examination on 10 percent weld
populations. The proposed change does not
affect the operation of any systems or
equipment that may initiate a new or
different kind of accident, or alter any SSC
such that a new accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed change does not adversely
affect the design function of the mechanical
couplers, the structures in which the
couplers are used, or any other SSC design
functions or methods of operation in a
manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect
safety-related or nonsafety-related
equipment. This activity does not allow for
a new fission product release path, result in
a new fission product barrier failure mode, or
create a new sequence of events that result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment 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.
The proposed change describes how
evaluation of coupler strength, and by
extension, weld strength and quality are used
to demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds
with fillet weld reinforcement joining
weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment
plates as being able to perform their design
function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690–
1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for nondestructive examination on 10 percent weld
populations. The proposed change satisfies
the same design functions in accordance with
the same codes and standards as stated in the
UFSAR. This change does not adversely
affect compliance with any design code,
function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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: Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
A. This Order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to this
proceeding may request access to
documents containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of
this notice of hearing and opportunity to
petition for leave to intervene, any
potential party who believes access to
SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
notice may request access to SUNSI. A
‘‘potential party’’ is any person who
intends to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR
2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after
publication of this notice will not be
considered absent a showing of good
cause for the late filing, addressing why
the request could not have been filed
earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter
requesting permission to access SUNSI
to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
and provide a copy to the Associate
General Counsel for Hearings,
Enforcement and Administration, Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001. The expedited delivery
or courier mail address for both offices
is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The email address for
the Office of the Secretary and the
Office of the General Counsel are
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and
OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1
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
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
The request must include the following
information:
(1) A description of the licensing
action with a citation to this Federal
Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the
potential party and a description of the
potential party’s particularized interest
that could be harmed by the action
identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and
the requester’s basis for the need for the
information in order to meaningfully
participate in this adjudicatory
proceeding. In particular, the request
must explain why publicly available
versions of the information requested
would not be sufficient to provide the
basis and specificity for a proffered
contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under paragraph
C.(3) the NRC staff will determine
within 10 days of receipt of the request
whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to
believe the petitioner is likely to
establish standing to participate in this
NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the
requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2)
above, the NRC staff will notify the
requestor in writing that access to
SUNSI has been granted. The written
notification will contain instructions on
how the requestor may obtain copies of
the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to
those documents. These conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting
forth terms and conditions to prevent
the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual
who will be granted access to SUNSI.
F. Filing of Contentions. Any
contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received
as a result of the request made for
SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no
later than 25 days after receipt of (or
access to) that information. However, if
more than 25 days remain between the
petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in
the notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff after a
determination on standing and requisite
need, the NRC staff shall immediately
notify the requestor in writing, briefly
stating the reason or reasons for the
denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the
NRC staff’s adverse determination by
filing a challenge within 5 days of
receipt of that determination with: (a)
The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer
has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an Administrative Law Judge
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under
this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A
party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination
granting access to SUNSI whose release
would harm that party’s interest
20499
independent of the proceeding. Such a
challenge must be filed within 5 days of
the notification by the NRC staff of its
grant of access and must be filed with:
(a) The presiding officer designated in
this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an Administrative Law Judge
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff
determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal
process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The
availability of interlocutory review by
the Commission of orders ruling on
such NRC staff determinations (whether
granting or denying access) is governed
by 10 CFR 2.311.3
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
The attachment to this Order
summarizes the general target schedule
for processing and resolving requests
under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of April, 2017.
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.
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.
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).
10 ......................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
60 ......................
procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
2 Any Motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief
Administrative Judge, if the presiding officer has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
not yet been designated, within 30 days of the
deadline for the receipt of the written access
request.
3 Requesters should note that the filing
requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
20500
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 2, 2017 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued
Day
Event/activity
20 ......................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for
access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
(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.
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.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
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.
(Contention receipt + 25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
25 ......................
30 ......................
40 ......................
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
The granting of the exemption allows
the changes to Tier 1 information asked
for in the amendment. Because the
acceptability of the exemption was
determined in part by the acceptability
of the amendment, the exemption and
amendment are being issued
concurrently.
[FR Doc. 2017–08896 Filed 5–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028; NRC–
2008–0441]
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Exemption and combined
license amendment; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is granting an
exemption to allow a departure from the
certification information of Tier 1 of the
generic AP1000 design control
document (DCD) and is issuing License
Amendment No. 62 to Combined
Licenses (COL), NPF–93 and NPF–94.
The COLs were issued to South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company and the South
Carolina Public Service Authority, (both
collectively referred to as the licensee)
for construction and operation of the
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, located in
Fairfield County, South Carolina.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 May 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
The exemption and amendment
were issued on March 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0441 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0252. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
DATES:
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric
& Gas Company; South Carolina
Public Service Authority Relocation of
Air Cooled Chiller Pump 3, VWS–MP–
03
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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. The
request for the amendment and
exemption was submitted by letter
dated October 21, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16246A214), and
supplemented by letters dated March 31
and July 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML16091A380 and
ML16196A354).
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William C. Gleaves, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–5848; email:
Bill.Gleaves@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is granting an exemption
from Paragraph B of Section III, ‘‘Scope
and Contents,’’ of appendix D, ‘‘Design
Certification Rule for the AP1000,’’ to
part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), and issuing
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20493-20500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08896]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0100]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No.
2; Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; and South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3. 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 June 1, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 3, 2017. Any potential party as defined in Sec.
2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by May 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0100. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927; email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 20494]]
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0100, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0100.
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 ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0100, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 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 Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order that may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also
[[Page 20495]]
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 by July
3, 2017. 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, any motion or other document filed in
the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or
petition, 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 Web site 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 Web site 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 Web site 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 on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
[[Page 20496]]
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 Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, 2016, and November 10, 2016. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15323A351,
ML16278A080, and ML16315A286.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The NRC
staff previously made a proposed determination that the license
amendment request dated November 19, 2015, involves no significant
hazards consideration (81 FR 19645; April 5, 2016). Subsequently, by
letter dated October 3, 2016, the licensee provided additional
information that expanded the scope of the amendment request as
originally noticed. Accordingly, this notice supersedes the previous
notice in its entirety. The amendment requests plant-specific review
and approval of reactor core design methodology reports DPC-NE-3008-P,
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' and
DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report/
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15 Transient Analysis
Methodology,'' for adoption into the HNP and RNP Technical
Specifications. In the supplement dated October 3, 2016, the licensee
added the request for the review and approval of DPC-NE-3009-P,
Revision 0.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,''
and DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). The
benchmark calculations performed confirm the accuracy of the codes
and models. The proposed use of this methodology does not affect the
performance of any equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an
analyzed accident. There is no impact on the source term or pathways
assumed in accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are
violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors that
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,''
and DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). It does
not change any system functions or maintenance activities. The
change does not physically alter the plant, that is, no new or
different type of equipment will be installed. The software is not
installed in any plant equipment, and therefore the software is
incapable of initiating an equipment malfunction that would result
in a new or different type of accident from any previously
evaluated. The proposed methodology and safety analysis assumptions
ensure that the core will operate within safe limits. This change
does not create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not
identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are
generated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed changes request review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P,
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' and
DPC-NE-3009-P, Revision 0, ``FSAR/UFSAR Chapter 15 Transient
Analysis Methodology'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant (HNP)
[[Page 20497]]
and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). As a portion of the
overall Duke Energy methodology for cycle reload safety analyses,
DPC-NE-3008-P will be used in thermal-hydraulic transient analyses
and DPC-NE-3009-P will support the performance of FSAR/UFSAR Chapter
15 transient analysis. As with the existing methodologies, the Duke
Energy methodologies will continue to ensure (a) the acceptability
of analytical limits under normal, transient, and accident
conditions, and (b) that all applicable design and safety limits are
satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to
perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: February 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17048A444.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications to implement a measurement uncertainty
recapture power uprate. Specifically, the amendment would authorize an
increase in the maximum licensed thermal power level from 3,951
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4,016 MWt, which is an increase of
approximately 1.66 percent.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No, the proposed increase in power level does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not affect system design or operation
and thus do not create any new accident initiators or increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. All accident
mitigation systems will function as designed, and all performance
requirements for these systems have been evaluated and were found
acceptable.
The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) components (e.g., reactor
vessel, reactor internals, control rod drive housings, piping and
supports, and recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable
structural limits and will continue to perform their intended design
functions during normal and accident conditions. Thus, there is no
increase in the probability of a structural failure of these
components.
The balance of plant systems and components continue to meet
their applicable structural limits and will continue to perform
their intended design functions. Thus, there is no increase in the
probability of a failure of these components. The safety relief
valves and containment isolation valves meet design sizing
requirements at the uprated power level. Because the integrity of
the plant will not be affected by operation at the uprated
condition, EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has concluded that all
structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
All safety analyses have either been performed at 102% of
Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) and therefore bound the
proposed uprate or have been subject to plant-specific analyses at a
power level equal to or greater than the proposed uprate. The
results demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the applicable
analyses continue to be met at the uprated conditions. The analyses
performed to assess the effects of mass and energy releases remain
valid. The source terms used to assess radiological consequences
have been reviewed and determined to bound operation at the uprated
condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No, the proposed increase in power level does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse
effects on any safety-related system or component and do not
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
No new equipment or procedure changes are involved that could add
new accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No, the proposed increase in power level does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Operation at the uprated power condition does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Analyses of the primary
fission product barriers have concluded that relevant design
criteria remain satisfied, both from the standpoint of the integrity
of the primary fission product barrier, and from the standpoint of
compliance with the required acceptance criteria. As appropriate,
all evaluations have been performed using methods that have either
been reviewed or approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or
that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and
standards.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16301A385.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment request proposes a change to Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* information to specify the supplemental
requirement of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-
1994, ``American National Standard Specification for the Design,
Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for
Nuclear Facilities'' (AISC N690-1994), Section Q1.26.2.2, ``Partial-
Penetration Welds,'' for the demonstration of sufficient strength and
quality of the carbon steel embedment plate coupler welds to be
[[Page 20498]]
credited as justification for the determination that the installed
coupler welds are capable of performing their intended design function.
The requested amendment proposes a change to Tier 2* information. This
submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to
implement these changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetrate on (PJP) welds
with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon
steel embedment plates as being able to perform their intended
design function in lieu of satisfying the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement
for non-destructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent weld
populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events.
The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected. The change
does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical or
fluid systems. The change does not impact the support, design, or
operation of any safety-related structures. There is no change to
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not
adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new
accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested 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 change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is
created.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the design
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the
couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment 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.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change
satisfies the same design functions in accordance with the same
codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not
adversely affect compliance with any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request access to SUNSI. A ``potential party'' is any person who
intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing
an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to
SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice
will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late
filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both
offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the
Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.\1\
[[Page 20499]]
The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any Motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge, if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25
days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The
presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or
she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative
Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if
another officer has been designated to rule on information access
issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77
FR 46562; August 3, 2012) apply to appeals of NRC staff
determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer
or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI
request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The
attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2017.
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).
[[Page 20500]]
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt + 30) If NRC staff finds standing
and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff
to complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of opportunity to request a hearing
and petition for leave to intervene), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt + 25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2017-08896 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P