Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information, 17226-17233 [E9-8455]
Download as PDF
17226
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
Agenda
repository (other than a potential
geologic repository site at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, currently under
investigation by the U.S. Department of
Energy, which is now regulated under
10 CFR Part 63).
5. The Number of Annual
Respondents: 1; however none are
expected in the next three years.
6. The Number of Hours Needed
Annually to Complete the Requirement
or Request: 1; however, none are
expected in the next three years.
7. Abstract: Part 60 requires States
and Indian Tribes to submit certain
information to the NRC if they request
consultation with the NRC staff
concerning the review of a potential
repository site, or wish to participate in
a license application review for a
potential repository (other than the
Yucca Mountain, Nevada site proposed
by the U.S. Department of Energy).
Representatives of States or Indian
Tribes must submit a statement of their
authority to act in such a representative
capacity. The information submitted by
the States and Indian Tribes is used by
the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards as a
basis for decisions about the
commitment of NRC staff resources to
the consultation and participation
efforts. As provided in § 60.1, the
regulations in 10 CFR Part 60 no longer
apply to the licensing of a geologic
repository at Yucca Mountain. All of the
information collection requirements
pertaining to Yucca Mountain were
included in 10 CFR Part 63, and were
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 3150–
0199. The Yucca Mountain site is
regulated under 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR
55792, November 2, 2001).
Submit, by June 15, 2009, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting
statement may be viewed free of charge
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are
available at the NRC worldwide Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. The
(1) Chair’s opening remarks—Clerk of
the House.
(2) Recognition of Co-chair—Secretary
of the Senate
(3) Recognition of the Acting
Archivist of the United States.
(4) Approval of the minutes of the last
meeting.
(5) Discussion of on-going projects
and activities.
(6) Activities Report of the Center for
Legislative Archives.
(7) Other current issues and new
business.
The meeting is open to the public.
Dated: April 8, 2009.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–8506 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. NRC–2009–0150]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public
comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC invites public
comment about our intention to request
the OMB’s approval for renewal of an
existing information collection that is
summarized below. We are required to
publish this notice in the Federal
Register under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The Title of the Information
Collection: 10 CFR Part 60—‘‘Disposal
of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in
Geologic Repositories.’’
2. Current OMB Approval Number:
3150–0127.
3. How Often the Collection is
Required: The information need only be
submitted one time.
4. Who is Required or Asked to
Report: State or Indian Tribes, or their
representatives, requesting consultation
with the NRC staff regarding review of
a potential high-level radioactive waste
geologic repository site, or wishing to
participate in a license application
review for a potential geologic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice. Comments
submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public
inspection. Because your comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying
or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any
information in your submission that you
do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Comments submitted should reference
Docket No. NRC–2009–0150. You may
submit your comments by any of the
following methods. Electronic
comments: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket No. NRC–2009–0150. Mail
comments to NRC Clearance Officer,
Gregory Trussell (T–5 F53), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions
about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the
NRC Clearance Officer, Gregory Trussell
(T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, by telephone at 301–415–6445, or
by e-mail to
INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of April 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory Trussell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E9–8447 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0160]
Notice; Applications and Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses
Involving Proposed No Significant
Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information or Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information or Safeguards Information
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
staff is publishing this notice. The Act
requires the Commission 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 upon a
determination by the Commission that
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
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 sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI) or safeguards information
(SGI).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
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 should 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.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch, TWB–05–B01M,
Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Documents
may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland.
The filing of requests for a hearing
and petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the subject amendment to
the facility operating license. Such
request(s) and petition(s) should be filed
via electronic submission through the
NRC E-Filing system. Request(s) for a
hearing and petition(s) for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part002/part0020309.html. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm.html. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed within 60 days, the Commission
or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17227
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also set forth the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at 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/requestor shall
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/requestor
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the petitioner/requestor intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these
requirements 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, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
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 decide
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
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
17228
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated in August
28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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.
Participants may not submit paper
copies of their filings unless they seek
a waiver in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least) ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
petitioner/requestor must contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling
(301) 415–1677, to request (1) a digital
ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and/or (2) creation of an
electronic docket for the proceeding
(even in instances in which the
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
ViewerTM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE 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 e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC 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 documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may
seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact
Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC
electronic filing Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays. The
electronic filing Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1–866–672–
7640 or by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file a
motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
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, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass 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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings, unless an NRC regulation
or other law requires submission of such
information. 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.
For further details with respect to this
amendment action, see the application
for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if
there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–
4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of Amendment Request:
September 17, 2008, as supplemented
by letter dated February 26, 2009. The
revised proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) included in the
February 26, 2009, letter replaces the
NSHC in the letter dated September 17,
2008, in its entirety.
Description of Amendment Request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The Waterford
Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ is
being revised to take credit for soluble
boron in Region 1 (cask storage pit) and
Region 2 (spent fuel pool and refueling
canal) fuel storage racks for the storage
of both Standard and Next Generation
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
Fuel (NGF) assemblies. Two new TS
Limiting Conditions for Operation and
associated Surveillance Requirements,
3/4 9.12, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Boron
Concentration,’’ and 3/4 9.13, ‘‘Spent
Fuel Pool,’’ have been added to ensure
the required boron concentration is
maintained in the spent fuel storage
racks and that spent fuel storage racks
are within the design parameters,
respectively. The proposed change is
evaluated for both normal operation and
accident conditions and is intended to
provide more flexibility in storing the
more reactive NGF assemblies in the
spent fuel storage racks.
Basis for Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the spent fuel storage racks
is to maintain fresh and irradiated fuel in a
safe storage condition. The proposed changes
for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage area)
and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after
permanent plant shutdown, refueling canal)
fuel storage racks, which involve taking
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnupenrichment limits and loading restrictions for
the storage of fuel assemblies, and increasing
the keff [effective (neutron) multiplication
factor] limit for the flooding of the fuel
storage racks with unborated water will not
affect any accident initiator or mitigator. The
proposed changes will provide more
flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF
assemblies in the spent fuel pool storage
racks. The effects of the new fuel parameters
of NGF assemblies on radiation shielding,
thermal-hydraulics, seismic/structural, and
mechanical drop analyses have been
separately reviewed and were found to be
acceptable.
The proposed changes will not alter the
configuration of the storage racks or their
environment. The fuel racks will not be
operated outside of their design limits, and
no additional loads will be imposed on them.
Therefore, these changes will not affect fuel
storage rack performance or reliability. No
new equipment will be introduced into the
plant. The accuracies and response
characteristics of existing instrumentation
will not be modified. The proposed changes
will not require, or result in, a change in
safety system operation, and will not affect
any system interface with the fuel storage
racks. Fuel assembly placement will continue
to be controlled in accordance with approved
fuel handling procedures. The proposed
changes in the Technical Specifications,
including surveillance requirements, will not
add any significant complexities or increase
the possibility of operator error.
The proposed changes will not affect any
barrier that mitigates dose to the public, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
will not result in a new release pathway
being created. The functions of equipment
designed to control the release of radioactive
material will not be impacted, and no
mitigating actions described or assumed for
an accident in the UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analyses Report] will be altered or
prevented. No assumptions previously made
in evaluating the consequences of an
accident will need to be modified. Onsite
dose will not be increased, so the access of
plant personnel to vital areas of the plant will
not be restricted and mitigating actions will
not be impeded.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not significantly
increase either the probability or
consequences of any 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 for the Region 1
(spent fuel cask storage area) and Region 2
(spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks,
which involve taking credit for soluble
boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits
and loading restrictions for the storage of fuel
assemblies, and increasing the keff limit for
the flooding of the fuel storage racks with
unborated water will not increase the
probability of an accident which was
previously considered to be incredible nor
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident initiator
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The proposed changes do not involve
changes to the configuration of plant systems,
or the manner in which they are operated.
Crediting soluble boron in the spent fuel pool
storage rack criticality analysis will have no
effect on normal pool operation and
maintenance since soluble boron in Region 1
and Region 2 is currently required by
procedure. The crediting of soluble boron
will only result in increased sampling to
verify compliance with the minimum boron
concentration required by the new TS 3/
4.9.12. The increased sampling ensures that
a new kind of accident, boron dilution in the
spent fuel pool, will not be created.
The addition of large amounts of unborated
water would be necessary to reduce the
boron concentration in the spent fuel pool
from the normal level of ≥ 1,900 ppm [parts
per million] specified in new TS 3/4.9.12 to
either 838 ppm (needed to accommodate the
most limiting fuel loading accident) or 447
ppm (required for normal conditions). A
small dilution flow might result from a leak
from the cooling system into the spent fuel
pool. Routine surveillance measurements of
the soluble boron concentration conducted
every 7 days per the new TS 3/4.9.12 would
readily detect the reduction in concentration
and provide sufficient time for corrective
action prior to exceeding the regulatory
limits.
A high flow rate dilution accident
involving continuous operation of the
Condensate Storage Pool pump could add a
large amount of unborated water to the spent
fuel pool. However, multiple alarms would
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17229
alert the Control Room to the situation,
including the fuel pool high-level alarm, Fuel
Handling Building sump high-level alarm,
and the Liquid Waste Management Trouble
alarm. It is not considered credible that either
multiple alarms would fail or be ignored by
Operators, or that the spilling of large
volumes of water from the spent fuel pool
would be observed by plant personnel who
would not take corrective actions. Moreover,
if the soluble boron in the spent fuel storage
racks would be completely diluted, the fuel
in the racks will remain subcritical by a
design margin of at least 0.005 Dk, and so the
keff of the fuel in the racks will remain below
1.00.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes for the Region 1
(spent fuel cask storage area) and Region 2
(spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks,
which involve taking credit for soluble
boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits
and loading restrictions for the storage of fuel
assemblies, and increasing the keff limit for
the flooding of the fuel storage racks with
unborated water, will not result in a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Detailed analysis with approved and
benchmarked methods has shown, with a
95% probability at a 95% confidence level,
that the neutron multiplication factor, keff, of
the Region 1 and Region 2 high-density spent
fuel pool storage racks, loaded with either
Standard or NGF assemblies, and including
biases, tolerances, and uncertainties, is less
than 1.00 with unborated water, and less
than 0.95 with 447 ppm of soluble boron
credited. In addition, the effects of abnormal
and accident conditions have been evaluated
to demonstrate that under credible
conditions the keff will not exceed 0.95 with
soluble boron credited. To ensure that the
margin of safety for subcriticality is
maintained, and that keff will be below 0.95,
a new TS 3/4.9.12 will require a soluble
boron level of ≥ 1,900 ppm in the spent fuel
pool. This is much greater than the required
soluble boron concentration of 447 ppm
under normal conditions, and 838 ppm for
all credible accident conditions.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Terence A.
Burke, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340
Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi
39213.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
17230
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of
Two Creeks, Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin
Date of Amendment Request:
December 8, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated January 16 and 27, 2009,
and February 20, 2009.
Description of Amendment Request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
current licensing basis to implement the
alternate source term (AST) through
reanalysis of the radiological
consequences of the Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14
accidents. The following technical
specifications (TS) are requested to be
modified:
TS 1.1 is reduced from 0.4 percent of
containment air weight per day to 0.2
percent of containment air weight per
day at peak design containment
pressure.
Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.4.16.2 is revised to change the specific
activity of the reactor coolant from dose
equivalent (DE) I–131 less than or equal
to 0.8 uCi/gm to less than or equal to 0.5
uCi/gm.
SR 3.7.9.3 and SR 3.7.9.6 are revised
to delete the word ‘‘makeup.’’
TS 3.7.13 is revised to change the
specific activity of the secondary
coolant from less than or equal to 1.00
uCi/gm to less than or equal to 0.1 uCi/
gm DE I–131.
TS 5.5.15c is revised to change the
maximum allowable containment
leakage rate, from 0.4 percent to 0.2
percent of containment air weight per
day.
TS 5.6.4 adds WCAP–16259–P–A
‘‘Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3–D Transient
Neutronics to Non-LOCA Analyses’’ to
the list of approved analytical methods.
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 results of the applicable radiological
[design basis accident] DBA re-evaluation
demonstrated that, with the requested
changes, the dose consequences of these
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
limiting events are within the regulatory
limits and guidance provided by the NRC in
10 CFR 50.67 and [Regulatory Guide] RG
1.183 [‘‘Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents
at Nuclear Power Plants,’’ July 2000] for the
AST methodology. The AST is an input to
calculations used to evaluate the
consequences of an accident and does not by
itself affect the plant response or the actual
pathway of the activity released from the
fuel. It does, however, better represent the
physical characteristics of the release, such
that appropriate mitigation techniques may
be applied.
The change from the original source term
to the new proposed AST is a change in the
analysis method and assumptions and has no
effect on the probability of occurrence of
previously analyzed accidents. Use of an
AST to analyze the dose effect of DBAs
shows that regulatory acceptance criteria for
the new methodology continues to be met.
The dose consequences in the [control room]
CR, the exclusion area boundary, and the low
population zone [LPZ] do not exceed the
regulatory limits provided by the NRC in 10
CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183 for
the AST methodology.
For the locked rotor [LR] event, an NRC
approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse
WCAP–16259–P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse
Methodology for Application of 3–D
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident
Analysis,’’) is used to determine rods in
[departure from nucleate boiling] DNB. The
use of an NRC approved methodology
provides an input assumption to the
radiological dose consequences calculations.
The use of the new methodology does not
change the sequence or progression of the
accident scenario.
The proposed TS changes reflect the plant
configuration that is required to implement
the AST analyses. The equipment affected by
the proposed changes is mitigating in nature
and relied upon after an accident has been
initiated. The operation of various filtration
systems, the [residual heat removal] RHR and
the [containment spray] CS systems,
including associated support systems, has
been considered in the evaluations of these
proposed changes. The operation of this
equipment has been evaluated for emergency
diesel generator loading and fuel
consumption. The evaluation demonstrated
that the diesel generator loading and fuel
consumption do not exceed the diesel
generator criteria. While the operation of
these systems does change with the
implementation of an AST, the affected
systems are not accident initiators, and
application of the AST methodology itself is
not an initiator of a DBA.
The operation of containment spray on
sump recirculation has been evaluated for
increased strainer blockage or reduction in
flow from the sump. The evaluation
demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect
the operation of the emergency core cooling
systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes proposed in this [license
amendment request] LAR involve the use of
a new analysis methodology and related
regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed
TS changes reflect the plant configuration
that is required to implement the AST
analyses. No new or different accidents result
from utilizing the proposed changes.
Although the proposed changes require
modifications to the [control room
ventilation system] VNCR system, as well as
modifications to the RHR system and CS
system, these changes will not create a new
or different kind of accident since they are
related to system capabilities that provide
protection from accidents that have already
occurred. The operation of this equipment
has been evaluated for emergency diesel
generator loading and fuel consumption. The
evaluation demonstrated that the diesel
generator loading and fuel consumption do
not exceed the diesel generator criteria.
The operation of containment spray on
sump recirculation has been evaluated for
increased strainer blockage or reduction in
flow from the sump. The evaluation
demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect
the operation of the emergency core cooling
systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
As a result, no new failure modes are being
introduced that could lead to different
accidents. These changes do not alter the
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor
do they introduce any unique precursor
mechanisms.
For the LR event, an NRC approved
methodology RAVE (Westinghouse WCAP–
16259–P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to
Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,’’) is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC
approved methodology provides an input
assumption to the radiological dose
consequences calculations. The use of the
new methodology does not alter the nature of
events postulated in the FSAR nor do they
introduce any unique precursor mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
type of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes proposed in this license
amendment involve the use of a new analysis
methodology and related regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed TS changes
reflect the plant configuration that is required
to implement the AST analyses. Safety
margins and analytical conservatisms have
been evaluated and have been found to be
acceptable. The analyzed events have been
carefully selected and, with plant
modifications, no significant reduction of
margin has occurred and analyses adequately
bound postulated event scenarios. The
proposed changes continue to ensure that the
dose consequences of DBAs at the exclusion
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
area and LPZ boundaries and in the CR are
within the corresponding acceptance criteria
presented in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The
margin of safety for the radiological
consequences of these accidents is provided
by meeting the applicable regulatory limits,
which are set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67
limits. An acceptable margin of safety is
inherent in these limits.
For the LR event, an NRC approved
methodology RAVE (Westinghouse WCAP–
16259–P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to
Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,’’) is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC
approved methodology provides an input
assumption to the radiological dose
consequences calculations. The use of the
new methodology does not reduce any
margins of safety for the LR event; therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Antonio
Fernandez, Senior Attorney, FPL Energy
Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) and
Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of
Two Creeks, Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin
1. This order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to the
proceedings listed above may request
access to documents containing
sensitive unclassified information
(SUNSI and SGI).
2. Within ten (10) days after
publication of this notice of opportunity
for hearing, any potential party as
defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes
access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for
a response to the notice may request
access to SUNSI or SGI. A ‘‘potential
party’’ is any person who intends or
may intend to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and the filing of
an admissible contention under 10 CFR
2.309. Requests submitted later than ten
(10) days will not be considered, absent
a showing of good cause for the late
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
17231
filing, addressing why the request could
not have been filed earlier.
3. The requester shall submit a letter
requesting permission to access SUNSI
and/or SGI 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, Washington, DC
20555–0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852. The e-mail address for the Office
of the Secretary and the Office of the
General Counsel are
hearing.docket@nrc.gov and
ogcmailcenter.resource@nrc.gov,
respectively.1 The request must include
the following information:
a. A description of the licensing
action with a citation to this Federal
Register notice of opportunity for
hearing;
b. 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 (a);
c. If the request is for SUNSI, the
identity of the individual requesting
access to SUNSI and the requester’s
need for the information in order to
meaningfully participate in this
adjudicatory proceeding, particularly
why publicly available versions of the
application would not be sufficient to
provide the basis and specificity for a
proffered contention;
d. If the request is for SGI, the identity
of the individual requesting access to
SGI and the identity of any expert,
consultant or assistant who will aid the
requester in evaluating the SGI, and
information that shows:
(i) Why the information is
indispensable to meaningful
participation in this licensing
proceeding; and
(ii) The technical competence
(demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education) of the
requester to understand and use (or
evaluate) the requested information to
provide the basis and specificity for a
proffered contention. The technical
competence of a potential party or its
counsel may be shown by reliance on a
qualified expert, consultant or assistant
who demonstrates technical competence
as well as trustworthiness and
reliability, and who agrees to sign a nondisclosure affidavit and be bound by the
terms of a protective order; and
e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF–
85, ‘‘Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions,’’ Form FD–258 (fingerprint
card), and a credit check release form
completed by the individual who seeks
access to SGI and each individual who
will aid the requester in evaluating the
SGI. For security reasons, Form SF–85
can only be submitted electronically,
through a restricted-access database. To
obtain online access to the form, the
requester should contact the NRC’s
Office of Administration at 301–492–
3524.2 The other completed forms must
be signed in original ink, accompanied
by a check or money order payable in
the amount of $191.00 to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
each individual, and mailed to the:
Office of Administration, Security
Processing Unit, Mail Stop TWB–05
B32M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0012.
These forms will be used to initiate
the background check, which includes
fingerprinting as part of a criminal
history records check. Note: Copies of
these forms do not need to be included
with the request letter to the Office of
the Secretary, but the request letter
should state that the forms and fees
have been submitted as described above.
4. To avoid delays in processing
requests for access to SGI, all forms
should be reviewed for completeness
and accuracy (including legibility)
before submitting them to the NRC.
Incomplete packages will be returned to
the sender and will not be processed.
5. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under items 2
and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC
staff will determine within ten days of
receipt of the written access 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) there is a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or
need to know the SGI requested. For
SGI, the need to know determination is
made based on whether the information
requested is necessary (i.e.,
indispensable) for the proposed
recipient to proffer and litigate a
specific contention in this NRC
1 See footnote 6. 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
and/or SGI under these procedures should be
submitted as described in this paragraph.
2 The requester will be asked to provide his or her
full name, Social Security number, date and place
of birth, telephone number, and e-mail address.
After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online
form within one business day.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
17232
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
proceeding 3 and whether the proposed
recipient has the technical competence
(demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training, education, or experience) to
evaluate and use the specific SGI
requested in this proceeding.
6. If standing and need to know SGI
are shown, the NRC staff will further
determine based upon completion of the
background check whether the proposed
recipient is trustworthy and reliable.
The NRC staff will conduct (as
necessary) an inspection to confirm that
the recipient’s information protection
systems are sufficient to protect SGI
from inadvertent release or disclosure.
Recipients may opt to view SGI at the
NRC’s facility rather than establish their
own SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
7. A request for access to SUNSI or
SGI will be granted if:
a. The request has demonstrated that
there is a reasonable basis to believe that
a potential party is likely to establish
standing to intervene or to otherwise
participate as a party in this proceeding;
b. The proposed recipient of the
information has demonstrated a need for
SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and
that the proposed recipient of SGI is
trustworthy and reliable;
c. The proposed recipient of the
information has executed a NonDisclosure Agreement or Affidavit and
agrees to be bound by the terms of a
Protective Order setting forth terms and
conditions to prevent the unauthorized
or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/
or SGI; and
d. The presiding officer has issued a
protective order concerning the
information or documents requested.4
Any protective order issued shall
provide that the petitioner must file
SUNSI or SGI contentions 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 or SGI
contentions by that later deadline.
8. If the request for access to SUNSI
or SGI is granted, the terms and
conditions for access to sensitive
unclassified information will be set
forth in a draft protective order and
affidavit of non-disclosure appended to
a joint motion by the NRC staff, any
other affected parties to this
proceeding,5 and the petitioner(s). If the
diligent efforts by the relevant parties or
petitioner(s) fail to result in an
agreement on the terms and conditions
for a draft protective order or nondisclosure affidavit, the relevant parties
to the proceeding or the petitioner(s)
should notify the presiding officer
within ten (10) days, describing the
obstacles to the agreement.
9. If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff or a request
for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff
either after a determination on standing
and need to know or, later, after a
determination on trustworthiness and
reliability, the NRC staff shall briefly
state the reasons for the denial. Before
the Office of Administration makes an
adverse determination regarding access,
the proposed recipient must be
provided an opportunity to correct or
explain information. The requester may
challenge the NRC staff’s adverse
determination with respect to access to
SUNSI or with respect to standing or
need to know for SGI by filing a
challenge within ten (10) 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 § 2.318(a);
or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access
issues, with that officer. In the same
manner, an SGI requester may challenge
an adverse determination on
trustworthiness and reliability by filing
a challenge within fifteen (15) days of
receipt of that determination.
In the same manner, 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 ten (10) days of the
notification by the NRC staff of its grant
of such a request.
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 2.311.6
10. 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/or SGI, 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. Attachment 1 to this Order
summarizes the general target schedule
for processing and resolving requests
under these procedures.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day
of April 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1—General Target
Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards
Information (SGI) in This Proceeding
Day
Event/activity
0 .............................
Publication of Federal Register notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing, including order with instructions for
access requests.
3 Broad SGI requests under these procedures are
thus highly unlikely to meet the standard for need
to know; furthermore, staff redaction of information
from requested documents before their release may
be appropriate to comport with this requirement.
These procedures do not authorize unrestricted
disclosure or less scrutiny of a requester’s need to
know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention.
4 If a presiding officer has not yet been
designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer
to do so.
5 Parties/persons other than the requester and the
NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a
favorable access determination (and may participate
in the development of such a motion and protective
order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person’s
interest independent of the proceeding would be
harmed by the release of the information (e.g., as
with proprietary information).
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6 As of October 15, 2007, the NRC’s final ‘‘EFiling Rule’’ became effective. See Use of Electronic
Submissions in Agency Hearings (72 FR 49139;
Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that the
filing requirements of that rule 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/SGI
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices
17233
Day
Event/activity
10 ...........................
Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI and/or SGI 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; demonstrating that access should be granted (e.g., showing technical
competence for access to SGI); and, for SGI, including application fee for fingerprint/background check.
Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor
reply).
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 (1) need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI. (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 makes the finding of need to
know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins background check (including fingerprinting for a criminal history records check), information processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents), and readiness
inspections.
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need,’’ ‘‘need to know,’’ or 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.
(Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing, need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC
staff to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a determination that the proposed
recipient of SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note: Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination
regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information.
Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer.
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 and/or SGI consistent with decision
issuing the protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. 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 or SGI
contentions by that later deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
60 ...........................
20 ...........................
25 ...........................
30 ...........................
40 ...........................
190 .........................
205 .........................
A .............................
A + 3 ......................
A + 28 ....................
A + 53 ....................
A + 60 ....................
B .............................
[FR Doc. E9–8455 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee
Meeting on Regulatory Policies and
Practices; Notice of Meeting
The ACRS Subcommittee on
Regulatory Policies and Practices will
hold a meeting on May 6, 2009, in Room
T–2B3, Two White Flint North, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to
public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
Wednesday, May 6, 2009—1:30 p.m.
until the conclusion of business.
The Subcommittee will discuss the
proposed rule on a voluntary, riskinformed alternative to the current
requirements for analyzing the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Apr 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
performance of emergency core cooling
systems (ECCS) during loss-of-coolant
accidents (LOCAs). The proposed rule
would also establish procedures and
acceptance criteria for evaluating certain
changes in plant design and operation,
based upon the results of the new
analyses of ECCS performance. The
Subcommittee will hear presentations
by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff,
consultants to the staff, and other
interested persons regarding this matter.
The Subcommittee will gather
information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions
and actions, as appropriate, for
deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Officer, Dr. Hossein Nourbakhsh
(telephone 301–415–5622), five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Detailed procedures for the conduct of
and participation in ACRS meetings
were published in the Federal Register
on October 6, 2008, (73 FR 58268–
58269).
Further information regarding this
meeting can be obtained by contacting
the Designated Federal Officers between
7:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ET). Persons
planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named
individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any
potential changes to the agenda.
Dated: April 8, 2009.
Antonio Dias,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9–8466 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17226-17233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8455]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0160]
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or
Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards
Information
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) staff is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission 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 upon a
determination by the Commission that
[[Page 17227]]
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 sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards
information (SGI).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
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 should 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. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make 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.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking
and Directives Branch, TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the subject amendment to the facility operating license.
Such request(s) and petition(s) should be filed via electronic
submission through the NRC E-Filing system. Request(s) for a hearing
and petition(s) for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to
intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at 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/requestor shall 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/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements 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,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
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 decide 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 held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
[[Page 17228]]
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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. Participants may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least)
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC 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
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. The electronic
filing Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by
e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 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, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document 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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/
or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted,
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such information. 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.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of Amendment Request: September 17, 2008, as supplemented by
letter dated February 26, 2009. The revised proposed no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) included in the February 26, 2009, letter
replaces the NSHC in the letter dated September 17, 2008, in its
entirety.
Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS)
5.6, ``Fuel Storage,'' is being revised to take credit for soluble
boron in Region 1 (cask storage pit) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and
refueling canal) fuel storage racks for the storage of both Standard
and Next Generation
[[Page 17229]]
Fuel (NGF) assemblies. Two new TS Limiting Conditions for Operation and
associated Surveillance Requirements, 3/4 9.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)
Boron Concentration,'' and 3/4 9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool,'' have been
added to ensure the required boron concentration is maintained in the
spent fuel storage racks and that spent fuel storage racks are within
the design parameters, respectively. The proposed change is evaluated
for both normal operation and accident conditions and is intended to
provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF assemblies in
the spent fuel storage racks.
Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the spent fuel storage racks is to maintain fresh
and irradiated fuel in a safe storage condition. The proposed
changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage area) and Region 2
(spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant shutdown, refueling
canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking credit for soluble
boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and loading
restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and increasing the
keff [effective (neutron) multiplication factor] limit
for the flooding of the fuel storage racks with unborated water will
not affect any accident initiator or mitigator. The proposed changes
will provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF
assemblies in the spent fuel pool storage racks. The effects of the
new fuel parameters of NGF assemblies on radiation shielding,
thermal-hydraulics, seismic/structural, and mechanical drop analyses
have been separately reviewed and were found to be acceptable.
The proposed changes will not alter the configuration of the
storage racks or their environment. The fuel racks will not be
operated outside of their design limits, and no additional loads
will be imposed on them. Therefore, these changes will not affect
fuel storage rack performance or reliability. No new equipment will
be introduced into the plant. The accuracies and response
characteristics of existing instrumentation will not be modified.
The proposed changes will not require, or result in, a change in
safety system operation, and will not affect any system interface
with the fuel storage racks. Fuel assembly placement will continue
to be controlled in accordance with approved fuel handling
procedures. The proposed changes in the Technical Specifications,
including surveillance requirements, will not add any significant
complexities or increase the possibility of operator error.
The proposed changes will not affect any barrier that mitigates
dose to the public, and will not result in a new release pathway
being created. The functions of equipment designed to control the
release of radioactive material will not be impacted, and no
mitigating actions described or assumed for an accident in the UFSAR
[Updated Final Safety Analyses Report] will be altered or prevented.
No assumptions previously made in evaluating the consequences of an
accident will need to be modified. Onsite dose will not be
increased, so the access of plant personnel to vital areas of the
plant will not be restricted and mitigating actions will not be
impeded.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
significantly increase either the probability or consequences of any
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 for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and
increasing the keff limit for the flooding of the fuel
storage racks with unborated water will not increase the probability
of an accident which was previously considered to be incredible nor
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident initiator previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to the configuration
of plant systems, or the manner in which they are operated.
Crediting soluble boron in the spent fuel pool storage rack
criticality analysis will have no effect on normal pool operation
and maintenance since soluble boron in Region 1 and Region 2 is
currently required by procedure. The crediting of soluble boron will
only result in increased sampling to verify compliance with the
minimum boron concentration required by the new TS 3/4.9.12. The
increased sampling ensures that a new kind of accident, boron
dilution in the spent fuel pool, will not be created.
The addition of large amounts of unborated water would be
necessary to reduce the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool
from the normal level of = 1,900 ppm [parts per million]
specified in new TS 3/4.9.12 to either 838 ppm (needed to
accommodate the most limiting fuel loading accident) or 447 ppm
(required for normal conditions). A small dilution flow might result
from a leak from the cooling system into the spent fuel pool.
Routine surveillance measurements of the soluble boron concentration
conducted every 7 days per the new TS 3/4.9.12 would readily detect
the reduction in concentration and provide sufficient time for
corrective action prior to exceeding the regulatory limits.
A high flow rate dilution accident involving continuous
operation of the Condensate Storage Pool pump could add a large
amount of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. However, multiple
alarms would alert the Control Room to the situation, including the
fuel pool high-level alarm, Fuel Handling Building sump high-level
alarm, and the Liquid Waste Management Trouble alarm. It is not
considered credible that either multiple alarms would fail or be
ignored by Operators, or that the spilling of large volumes of water
from the spent fuel pool would be observed by plant personnel who
would not take corrective actions. Moreover, if the soluble boron in
the spent fuel storage racks would be completely diluted, the fuel
in the racks will remain subcritical by a design margin of at least
0.005 [Delta]k, and so the keff of the fuel in the racks
will remain below 1.00.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and
increasing the keff limit for the flooding of the fuel
storage racks with unborated water, will not result in a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Detailed analysis with approved and benchmarked methods has
shown, with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, that the
neutron multiplication factor, keff, of the Region 1 and
Region 2 high-density spent fuel pool storage racks, loaded with
either Standard or NGF assemblies, and including biases, tolerances,
and uncertainties, is less than 1.00 with unborated water, and less
than 0.95 with 447 ppm of soluble boron credited. In addition, the
effects of abnormal and accident conditions have been evaluated to
demonstrate that under credible conditions the keff will
not exceed 0.95 with soluble boron credited. To ensure that the
margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained, and that
keff will be below 0.95, a new TS 3/4.9.12 will require a
soluble boron level of = 1,900 ppm in the spent fuel
pool. This is much greater than the required soluble boron
concentration of 447 ppm under normal conditions, and 838 ppm for
all credible accident conditions.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
[[Page 17230]]
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of Amendment Request: December 8, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated January 16 and 27, 2009, and February 20, 2009.
Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
current licensing basis to implement the alternate source term (AST)
through reanalysis of the radiological consequences of the Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14 accidents. The following technical
specifications (TS) are requested to be modified:
TS 1.1 is reduced from 0.4 percent of containment air weight per
day to 0.2 percent of containment air weight per day at peak design
containment pressure.
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.16.2 is revised to change the
specific activity of the reactor coolant from dose equivalent (DE) I-
131 less than or equal to 0.8 uCi/gm to less than or equal to 0.5 uCi/
gm.
SR 3.7.9.3 and SR 3.7.9.6 are revised to delete the word
``makeup.''
TS 3.7.13 is revised to change the specific activity of the
secondary coolant from less than or equal to 1.00 uCi/gm to less than
or equal to 0.1 uCi/gm DE I-131.
TS 5.5.15c is revised to change the maximum allowable containment
leakage rate, from 0.4 percent to 0.2 percent of containment air weight
per day.
TS 5.6.4 adds WCAP-16259-P-A ``Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Analyses'' to the
list of approved analytical methods.
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 results of the applicable radiological [design basis
accident] DBA re-evaluation demonstrated that, with the requested
changes, the dose consequences of these limiting events are within
the regulatory limits and guidance provided by the NRC in 10 CFR
50.67 and [Regulatory Guide] RG 1.183 [``Alternative Radiological
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Plants,'' July 2000] for the AST methodology. The AST is an input to
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of an accident and
does not by itself affect the plant response or the actual pathway
of the activity released from the fuel. It does, however, better
represent the physical characteristics of the release, such that
appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied.
The change from the original source term to the new proposed AST
is a change in the analysis method and assumptions and has no effect
on the probability of occurrence of previously analyzed accidents.
Use of an AST to analyze the dose effect of DBAs shows that
regulatory acceptance criteria for the new methodology continues to
be met. The dose consequences in the [control room] CR, the
exclusion area boundary, and the low population zone [LPZ] do not
exceed the regulatory limits provided by the NRC in 10 CFR 50.67 and
Regulatory Guide 1.183 for the AST methodology.
For the locked rotor [LR] event, an NRC approved methodology
RAVE (Westinghouse WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident
Analysis,'') is used to determine rods in [departure from nucleate
boiling] DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology provides an
input assumption to the radiological dose consequences calculations.
The use of the new methodology does not change the sequence or
progression of the accident scenario.
The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration that is
required to implement the AST analyses. The equipment affected by
the proposed changes is mitigating in nature and relied upon after
an accident has been initiated. The operation of various filtration
systems, the [residual heat removal] RHR and the [containment spray]
CS systems, including associated support systems, has been
considered in the evaluations of these proposed changes. The
operation of this equipment has been evaluated for emergency diesel
generator loading and fuel consumption. The evaluation demonstrated
that the diesel generator loading and fuel consumption do not exceed
the diesel generator criteria. While the operation of these systems
does change with the implementation of an AST, the affected systems
are not accident initiators, and application of the AST methodology
itself is not an initiator of a DBA.
The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes proposed in this [license amendment request] LAR
involve the use of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant
configuration that is required to implement the AST analyses. No new
or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes.
Although the proposed changes require modifications to the [control
room ventilation system] VNCR system, as well as modifications to
the RHR system and CS system, these changes will not create a new or
different kind of accident since they are related to system
capabilities that provide protection from accidents that have
already occurred. The operation of this equipment has been evaluated
for emergency diesel generator loading and fuel consumption. The
evaluation demonstrated that the diesel generator loading and fuel
consumption do not exceed the diesel generator criteria.
The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase
of a DBA.
As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced that
could lead to different accidents. These changes do not alter the
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any
unique precursor mechanisms.
For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not alter the
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any
unique precursor mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes proposed in this license amendment involve the use
of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory acceptance
criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration
that is required to implement the AST analyses. Safety margins and
analytical conservatisms have been evaluated and have been found to
be acceptable. The analyzed events have been carefully selected and,
with plant modifications, no significant reduction of margin has
occurred and analyses adequately bound postulated event scenarios.
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the dose consequences
of DBAs at the exclusion
[[Page 17231]]
area and LPZ boundaries and in the CR are within the corresponding
acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The
margin of safety for the radiological consequences of these
accidents is provided by meeting the applicable regulatory limits,
which are set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable
margin of safety is inherent in these limits.
For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not reduce any
margins of safety for the LR event; therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Antonio Fernandez, Senior Attorney, FPL
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin
1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under
10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be
considered, absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI and/or SGI 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, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The
e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the
General Counsel are hearing.docket@nrc.gov and
ogcmailcenter.resource@nrc.gov, respectively.\1\ The request must
include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See footnote 6. 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 and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted
as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
b. 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 (a);
c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding,
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention;
d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and
information that shows:
(i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and
use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and
specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a
potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified
expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective
order; and
e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), and a credit
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI.
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically,
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration
at 301-492-3524.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in
original ink, accompanied by a check or money order payable in the
amount of $191.00 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each
individual, and mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security
Processing Unit, Mail Stop TWB-05 B32M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
Social Security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check.
Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the request
letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter should
state that the forms and fees have been submitted as described above.
4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten
days of receipt of the written access 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) there is a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in
this NRC
[[Page 17232]]
proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the technical
competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, education, or
experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI requested in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff
redaction of information from requested documents before their
release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These
procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 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 or SGI contentions by that later
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the
Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within ten (10) days,
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access
determination (and may participate in the development of such a
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by
the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or
explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's
adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect
to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within ten
(10) 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 Sec. 2.318(a); or (c) if another
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with
that officer. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
In the same manner, 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 ten (10) days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule''
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that
the filing requirements of that rule 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/SGI
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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/or SGI, 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. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general
target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these
procedures.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................... Publication of Federal Register
notice of proposed action and
opportunity for hearing,
including order with
instructions for access
requests.
[[Page 17233]]
10................................... Deadline for submitting requests
for access to SUNSI and/or SGI
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; demonstrating that
access should be granted (e.g.,
showing technical competence for
access to SGI); and, for SGI,
including application fee for
fingerprint/background check.
60................................... Deadline for submitting petition
for intervention containing: (i)
Demonstration of standing; (ii)
all contentions whose
formulation does not require
access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25
Answers to petition for
intervention; +7 petitioner/
requestor reply).
20................................... 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 (1) need
for SUNSI or (2) need to know
for SGI. (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 makes the finding of need
to know for SGI and likelihood
of standing, NRC staff begins
background check (including
fingerprinting for a criminal
history records check),
information processing
(preparation of redactions or
review of redacted documents),
and readiness inspections.
25................................... If NRC staff finds no ``need,''
``need to know,'' or 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.
190.................................. (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds
standing, need to know for SGI,
and trustworthiness and
reliability, deadline for NRC
staff to file motion for
Protective Order and draft Non-
disclosure Affidavit (or to make
a determination that the
proposed recipient of SGI is not
trustworthy or reliable). Note:
Before the Office of
Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding access,
the proposed recipient must be
provided an opportunity to
correct or explain information.
205.................................. Deadline for petitioner to seek
reversal of a final adverse NRC
staff determination either
before the presiding officer or
another designated officer.
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 and/or SGI
consistent with decision issuing
the protective order.
A + 28............................... Deadline for submission of
contentions whose development
depends upon access to SUNSI and/
or SGI. 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 or SGI
contentions by that later
deadline.
A + 53............................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers
to contentions whose development
depends upon access to SUNSI and/
or SGI.
A + 60............................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/
Intervenor reply to answers.
B.................................... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-8455 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P