In the Matter of: Exelon Generating Company, LLC Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately), 66156-66159 [E9-29660]
Download as PDF
66156
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 238 / Monday, December 14, 2009 / Notices
If the hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order should
be sustained.
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, this Order shall be final 20 days
from the date of its publication in the
Federal Register without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time
for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request
has not been received.
A request for a hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this
order.
Dated this the 1st day of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–29661 Filed 12–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0546, Docket Nos.: 50–277/278,
License Nos: DPR–44 &, DPR–56, EA–09–
007 & EA–09–059]
In the Matter of: Exelon Generating
Company, LLC Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Confirmatory Order
Modifying License (Effective
Immediately)
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
I
Exelon Generating Company, LLC
(Exelon or licensee) is the holder of
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–44
and DPR–56 issued by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or agency)
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The licenses
authorize the operation of Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(Peach Bottom or facility), in accordance
with conditions specified therein. The
facility is located on the licensee’s site
in Delta, Pennsylvania.
This Confirmatory Order (Order) is
the result of an agreement reached
during an Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mediation session
conducted on September 3, 2009. ADR
is a process in which a neutral mediator
with no decision-making authority
assists parties in reaching an agreement
on resolving any differences regarding
the dispute.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:54 Dec 11, 2009
Jkt 220001
II
Two investigations were initiated by
the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) to
determine if two former Peach Bottom
employees deliberately violated NRC
requirements by reporting inaccurate
information in one instance, and failing
to inform the licensee of information
required to be reported in the other. An
NRC letter to Exelon on June 5, 2009,
transmitted factual summaries of the OI
investigations and informed Exelon that,
based on the evidence developed during
the investigations, OI had substantiated
that apparent violations of NRC
requirements had occurred as the result
of deliberate actions of the former Peach
Bottom employees. The first
investigation, initiated on February 12,
2008, determined that a former Peach
Bottom maintenance supervisor
deliberately failed to provide complete
and accurate information when
completing a Personal History
Questionnaire (PHQ) for unescorted
access authorization (UAA), and
subsequently gained access to the site.
PHQs are a means by which licensees,
including Exelon, collect information to
make determinations about an
individual’s suitability for unescorted
access, as required by 10 CFR 73.56 and
the licensee’s Physical Security Plan.
Specifically, the former maintenance
supervisor provided incorrect
information regarding the character of
his military service, his history of
misconduct in the military, and the
nature of his discharge from the
military. The second investigation,
initiated on May 5, 2008, determined
that a former Peach Bottom licensed
Reactor Operator (RO) deliberately
failed to report an arrest/criminal
charges in accordance with the site
security program procedures for UAA
and the Behavioral Observation Program
(BOP). Specifically, the RO was arrested
and charged with driving under the
influence on October 13, 2007, and did
not report the incident to Exelon until
April 28, 2008.
III
The June 5, 2009, NRC letter informed
Exelon that the agency was considering
escalated enforcement against it for
these apparent violations of NRC
requirements and offered Exelon the
opportunity to either attend a
Predecisional Enforcement Conference
or to request use of ADR, to resolve this
matter. On June 12, 2009, Exelon
requested the use of ADR. On
September 3, 2009, the NRC and Exelon
met in an ADR session mediated by a
professional mediator, arranged through
Cornell University’s Scheinman
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Institute on Conflict Resolution. During
that ADR session, a settlement
agreement was reached. This
Confirmatory Order is the result of that
agreement, the elements of which
consisted of the following:
1. Exelon did not take issue with the
NRC preliminary conclusion set forth in
the June 5, 2009, letter that two
violations occurred and that the actions
by the former maintenance supervisor
and the former RO regarding the
violations were deliberate. The NRC
concluded that both violations
warranted Severity Level III
classification and would normally be
subject to a civil penalty in accordance
with the NRC Enforcement Policy,
because Exelon did not identify one of
the two violations. Exelon did not take
issue with the NRC conclusion that the
violation involving the former RO
constitutes a Severity Level III violation.
Exelon, however, asserted that the
maintenance supervisor applicant was
not a fully qualified supervisor when
incomplete and inaccurate information
was provided. Therefore, this instance
would not constitute a Severity Level III
violation. The NRC and Exelon agreed
to disagree on the severity level of this
violation.
2. The NRC acknowledged that Exelon
had taken several corrective actions in
response to the violations, so as to
preclude the occurrence of similar
violations in the future. These actions
include:
a. Completed Corrective Actions only
affecting Peach Bottom:
i. Conducted training module,
emphasizing the impact of deliberate
misconduct on nuclear safety culture.
ii. Performed common cause
evaluation on deliberate misconduct
events at PBAPS and implemented
resulting corrective actions.
b. Completed Corrective Actions
affecting all Exelon operating nuclear
facilities:
i. Revised Exelon fleet-wide PHQ to
require applicants to review and
acknowledge the expectation to provide
complete and accurate information and
the consequences of providing false,
incomplete, or misleading information.
ii. Revised fleet-wide procedure/
process for validating military
background investigation element.
iii. Implemented fleet-wide safety
culture training and workshops.
c. Completed Corrective Actions
affecting the nuclear industry:
i. Incorporated lessons learned
regarding validation of military
background into industry guidance
document Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 03–01 to strengthen industry
process.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 238 / Monday, December 14, 2009 / Notices
ii. Presented lessons learned on
military background falsification issue
at July 2009 NEI industry Personnel
Access Database System (PADS)
workshop.
3. Exelon agreed to take additional
actions to address the violations, to
ensure that the corrective actions
identified in Item 2 are effective, and to
ensure that lessons learned from these
events are extended to the Exelon fleet
and to the industry. These actions
consist of:
a. Planned Corrective Actions only
affecting Peach Bottom:
i. Review special obligations of
licensed operators and supervisors in
Peach Bottom licensed operator training
program, including Peach Bottom
operating experience.
ii. Develop an assessment to verify the
effectiveness of actions associated with
deliberate misconduct training.
iii. Perform Peach Bottom Site
Employee Issues Advisory Council
(SEIAC) reviews regarding employee
conduct issues/concerns, including any
apparent trends in these areas; and
ensure corporate EIAC emphasizes
comparison of site data to identify
trends or outliers.
iv. Repeat Peach Bottom training
module on deliberate misconduct for
new employees and current Peach
Bottom personnel in 2010, emphasizing
the impact of deliberate misconduct on
nuclear safety culture.
b. Planned Corrective Actions
affecting all Exelon operating nuclear
facilities:
i. Include deliberate misconduct
training in the fleet-wide Supervisory
Development Program for new
supervisors.
ii. Implement Peach Bottom training
module fleet-wide, emphasizing the
impact of deliberate misconduct on
nuclear safety culture. Exelon will also
review its current contractor training on
deliberate misconduct and add the
training module, if necessary.
iii. Provide additional information
fleet-wide, to educate the workforce on
BOP, Fitness-for-Duty requirements, and
Employee Assistance Program services.
c. Planned Corrective Actions
affecting the nuclear industry:
i. Provide lessons learned-type article
to Professional Reactor Operators
Society (PROS) requesting consideration
for inclusion in industry newsletter.
ii. Provide lessons learned-type article
to NEI requesting consideration for
inclusion in its industry newsletter.
iii. Discuss with the Institute of
Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) the
possibility of incorporating into its
supervisor and operations development
programs, a module regarding the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:54 Dec 11, 2009
Jkt 220001
significance and impact of deliberate
misconduct.
4. Exelon agreed to complete the
actions applicable only to Peach Bottom
after issuance of an NRC Confirmatory
Order, by June 30, 2010, and to send the
NRC a letter informing the agency that
the actions are complete, within 30 days
of their completion, to facilitate NRC
confirmatory reviews. Exelon also
agreed to complete the remaining
corrective actions after issuance of the
NRC Confirmatory Order, by September
30, 2010, and to send the NRC a letter
informing the agency that the actions
are complete, within 30 days of their
completion, to facilitate NRC
confirmatory reviews.
5. In light of the corrective actions
that Exelon took as noted in Item 2, as
well as the additional actions Exelon
committed to as described in Item 3, the
NRC agreed to not issue a Notice of
Violation or civil penalty for the two
violations that are the subject of this
ADR.
6. Exelon agreed to issuance of a
Confirmatory Order confirming this
agreement that describes the two
violations and the classification of the
violation involving the RO at Severity
Level III. The NRC agreed that, for this
violation, the date for the escalated
enforcement and reactor oversight
processes will be retroactive to the date
that the individual’s employment was
terminated (August 17, 2008). In
accordance with NRC practice, the
Confirmatory Order and the letter
forwarding it to Exelon will be publicly
available and accompanied by a press
release.
On November 19, 2009, Exelon
consented to issuing this Order with the
commitments, which are described in
Section V below. The Licensee further
agreed that this Order is to be effective
upon issuance and that it has waived its
right to a hearing.
IV
Since Exelon has agreed to take
additional actions to address NRC
concerns, as set forth in Section III, the
NRC has concluded that its concerns
can be resolved through issuance of this
Order.
I find that Exelon’s commitments, as
set forth in Section III, are acceptable
and necessary and conclude that with
these commitments the public health
and safety are reasonably assured. In
view of the foregoing, I have also
determined that public health and safety
require that the Licensee’s commitments
be confirmed by this Order. Based on
the above and Exelon’s consent, this
Order is immediately effective upon
issuance.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66157
V
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81,
161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and the Commission’s regulations in 10
CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, it is
hereby ordered, effective immediately
that Exelon shall:
A. Complete the following actions by
June 30, 2010, and send the NRC a letter
informing the agency that the actions
are complete within 30 days of their
completion:
a. Review special obligations of
licensed operators and supervisors in
Peach Bottom licensed operator training
program, including Peach Bottom
operating experience.
b. Develop an assessment to verify the
effectiveness of actions associated with
deliberate misconduct training.
c. Perform Peach Bottom Site
Employee Issues Advisory Council
(SEIAC) reviews regarding employee
conduct issues/concerns, including any
apparent trends in these areas; and
ensure corporate EIAC emphasizes
comparison of site data to identify
trends or outliers.
d. Repeat Peach Bottom training
module on deliberate misconduct for
new employees and current Peach
Bottom personnel in 2010, emphasizing
the impact of deliberate misconduct on
nuclear safety culture.
B. Complete the following actions by
September 30, 2010, and send the NRC
a letter informing the agency that the
actions are complete within 30 days of
their completion:
a. Include deliberate misconduct
training in the fleet-wide Supervisory
Development Program for new
supervisors.
b. Implement Peach Bottom training
module fleet-wide, emphasizing the
impact of deliberate misconduct on
nuclear safety culture. Exelon will also
review its current contractor training on
deliberate misconduct and add the
training module, if necessary.
c. Provide additional information
fleet-wide, to educate the workforce on
BOP, Fitness-for-Duty requirements, and
Employee Assistance Program services.
d. Provide lessons learned-type article
to Professional Reactor Operators
Society (PROS) requesting consideration
for inclusion in industry newsletter.
e. Provide lessons learned-type article
to NEI requesting consideration for
inclusion in its industry newsletter.
f. Discuss with INPO the possibility of
incorporating into its supervisor and
operations development programs, a
module regarding the significance and
impact of deliberate misconduct.
The NRC Region I Regional
Administrator may relax or rescind, in
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
66158
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 238 / Monday, December 14, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
writing, any of the above conditions
upon demonstration by Exelon of good
cause.
VI
Any person adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order, other than Exelon,
may request a hearing within 20 days of
its publication in the Federal Register.
Where good cause is shown,
consideration will be given to extending
the time to request a hearing. A request
for extension of time must be directed
to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and include a statement of good cause
for the extension.
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
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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 an exemption 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
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (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 (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:54 Dec 11, 2009
Jkt 220001
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through EIE, users will be
required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further
information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant 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 documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing 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. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in 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, or the 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.
If a person requests a hearing, that
person shall set forth with particularity
the manner in which his interest is
adversely affected by this Order and
shall address the criteria set forth in 10
CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 238 / Monday, December 14, 2009 / Notices
If the hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order should
be sustained.
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, this Order shall be final 20 days
from the date of its publication in the
Federal Register without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time
for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request
has not been received.
A request for a hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this
order.
Dated this the 1st day of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–29660 Filed 12–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–461]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing and
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for
Contention Preparation
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. NPF–
62 issued to Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (the licensee) for
operation of the Clinton Power Station,
Unit No. 1 (CPS), located in DeWitt
County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would
modify License Condition 2.B.(6) and
create new License Conditions 1.J and
2.B(7) as part of a pilot program to
irradiate Cobalt (Co)-59 targets to
produce Co-60, for the CPS. The
licensee also requests an amendment to
Appendix A, Technical Specifications
(TS), of the CPS Facility Operating
License, which would modify TS 4.2.1,
‘‘Fuel Assemblies,’’ to describe the
isotope test assemblies being used. The
amendment application dated June 26,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:54 Dec 11, 2009
Jkt 220001
2009, contains sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
The amendment application is
supplemented by letters dated
November 4, 2009 (ADAMS Package No.
ML093100316), November 17, 2009
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093210561),
and November 20, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML093280028).
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 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. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the license
conditions provide clarification and do not
impact plant operation in any way. The
handling of byproduct material (i.e., Co-60)
will continue to be done in accordance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 30 and the
requirements of the CPS Facility Operating
License. The proposed change to TS 4.2.1
also provides clarification and additional
description of the proposed ITAs to be used
in the CPS core. These changes provide
clarification and do not involve an increase
in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The use of the GE14i ITAs, has been
evaluated for impact on the previously
evaluated transients and design basis
accidents for CPS. GE-Hitachi report NEDC–
33505P, ‘‘Safety Analysis Report to Support
Introduction of GE14i Isotope Test
Assemblies (ITAs) in Clinton Power Station,’’
dated June 2009, documents the results of the
analyses completed to demonstrate the
impact on operation following introduction
of the ITAs in the CPS core. The use of these
ITAs does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration
or the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The Cycle 13 (i.e., the first
cycle of operation with the GE14i assembly)
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66159
core, and subsequent cores, will be designed
so that the ITAs will be placed in nonlimiting locations with respect to thermal
limit margins and shutdown margins. The
ITAs do not adversely affect the ability of any
structures, systems or components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
In addition to evaluation of the impact to
operation with the introduction of the GE14i
assemblies, EGC has also evaluated the
effects of these assemblies on post-irradiation
conditions. The additional heat from the Co60 decay is insignificant when compared to
the total heat from a normal refueling
discharge. The small amount of extra heat
added by the cobalt isotope rods poses no
additional risk of spent fuel pool (SFP) local
boiling over that was previously analyzed.
The maximum incident radiation due to an
irradiated GE14i bundle placed one foot from
the spent fuel pool walls is in excess of the
radiation that would result in significant
gamma heating of the concrete. However,
analysis has demonstrated that at four feet,
the energy deposition rate is well below that
required to cause significant concrete
heating. CPS procedures exist to guide
placement of irradiated fuel bundles in the
SFP to avoid gamma heating of the wall
concrete. These procedures will be modified
to specify that the irradiated GE14i bundles
be stored at least four feet from the pool
walls. With the four foot distance
requirement in effect, there is no limitation
on the amount of time an irradiated GE14i
bundle may remain in the pool.
Handling of the licensed transfer casks will
be in accordance with the guidance in
NUREG 0612, ‘‘Control of Heavy Loads at
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ using the Fuel
Building Crane. These precautions will
support safe movement of the casks within
the Fuel Building.
The consequences of a previously analyzed
event are dependent on the initial conditions
assumed in the analysis, the availability and
successful functioning of equipment assumed
to operate in response to the analyzed event,
and the setpoints at which these actions are
initiated. The consequences of a previously
evaluated accident are not significantly
increased by the proposed change. As
documented in NEDC–33505P, the proposed
change does not affect the performance of
any equipment credited to mitigate the
radiological consequences of an accident.
Evaluation of operation with the GE14i
assemblies in the CPS core, demonstrated
that the licensing basis radiological analyses
are not impacted by the introduction of eight
GE14i assemblies at CPS. This includes the
analyses done for transients and design basis
accident events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the CPS license
conditions and TS 4.2.1 will not introduce
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 238 (Monday, December 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66156-66159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29660]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0546, Docket Nos.: 50-277/278, License Nos: DPR-44 &, DPR-56,
EA-09-007 & EA-09-059]
In the Matter of: Exelon Generating Company, LLC Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective
Immediately)
I
Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon or licensee) is the holder
of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 issued by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or agency) pursuant to 10 CFR Part
50. The licenses authorize the operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station, Units 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom or facility), in accordance with
conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's
site in Delta, Pennsylvania.
This Confirmatory Order (Order) is the result of an agreement
reached during an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mediation
session conducted on September 3, 2009. ADR is a process in which a
neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists parties in
reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the
dispute.
II
Two investigations were initiated by the NRC Office of
Investigations (OI) to determine if two former Peach Bottom employees
deliberately violated NRC requirements by reporting inaccurate
information in one instance, and failing to inform the licensee of
information required to be reported in the other. An NRC letter to
Exelon on June 5, 2009, transmitted factual summaries of the OI
investigations and informed Exelon that, based on the evidence
developed during the investigations, OI had substantiated that apparent
violations of NRC requirements had occurred as the result of deliberate
actions of the former Peach Bottom employees. The first investigation,
initiated on February 12, 2008, determined that a former Peach Bottom
maintenance supervisor deliberately failed to provide complete and
accurate information when completing a Personal History Questionnaire
(PHQ) for unescorted access authorization (UAA), and subsequently
gained access to the site. PHQs are a means by which licensees,
including Exelon, collect information to make determinations about an
individual's suitability for unescorted access, as required by 10 CFR
73.56 and the licensee's Physical Security Plan. Specifically, the
former maintenance supervisor provided incorrect information regarding
the character of his military service, his history of misconduct in the
military, and the nature of his discharge from the military. The second
investigation, initiated on May 5, 2008, determined that a former Peach
Bottom licensed Reactor Operator (RO) deliberately failed to report an
arrest/criminal charges in accordance with the site security program
procedures for UAA and the Behavioral Observation Program (BOP).
Specifically, the RO was arrested and charged with driving under the
influence on October 13, 2007, and did not report the incident to
Exelon until April 28, 2008.
III
The June 5, 2009, NRC letter informed Exelon that the agency was
considering escalated enforcement against it for these apparent
violations of NRC requirements and offered Exelon the opportunity to
either attend a Predecisional Enforcement Conference or to request use
of ADR, to resolve this matter. On June 12, 2009, Exelon requested the
use of ADR. On September 3, 2009, the NRC and Exelon met in an ADR
session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell
University's Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution. During that
ADR session, a settlement agreement was reached. This Confirmatory
Order is the result of that agreement, the elements of which consisted
of the following:
1. Exelon did not take issue with the NRC preliminary conclusion
set forth in the June 5, 2009, letter that two violations occurred and
that the actions by the former maintenance supervisor and the former RO
regarding the violations were deliberate. The NRC concluded that both
violations warranted Severity Level III classification and would
normally be subject to a civil penalty in accordance with the NRC
Enforcement Policy, because Exelon did not identify one of the two
violations. Exelon did not take issue with the NRC conclusion that the
violation involving the former RO constitutes a Severity Level III
violation. Exelon, however, asserted that the maintenance supervisor
applicant was not a fully qualified supervisor when incomplete and
inaccurate information was provided. Therefore, this instance would not
constitute a Severity Level III violation. The NRC and Exelon agreed to
disagree on the severity level of this violation.
2. The NRC acknowledged that Exelon had taken several corrective
actions in response to the violations, so as to preclude the occurrence
of similar violations in the future. These actions include:
a. Completed Corrective Actions only affecting Peach Bottom:
i. Conducted training module, emphasizing the impact of deliberate
misconduct on nuclear safety culture.
ii. Performed common cause evaluation on deliberate misconduct
events at PBAPS and implemented resulting corrective actions.
b. Completed Corrective Actions affecting all Exelon operating
nuclear facilities:
i. Revised Exelon fleet-wide PHQ to require applicants to review
and acknowledge the expectation to provide complete and accurate
information and the consequences of providing false, incomplete, or
misleading information.
ii. Revised fleet-wide procedure/process for validating military
background investigation element.
iii. Implemented fleet-wide safety culture training and workshops.
c. Completed Corrective Actions affecting the nuclear industry:
i. Incorporated lessons learned regarding validation of military
background into industry guidance document Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 03-01 to strengthen industry process.
[[Page 66157]]
ii. Presented lessons learned on military background falsification
issue at July 2009 NEI industry Personnel Access Database System (PADS)
workshop.
3. Exelon agreed to take additional actions to address the
violations, to ensure that the corrective actions identified in Item 2
are effective, and to ensure that lessons learned from these events are
extended to the Exelon fleet and to the industry. These actions consist
of:
a. Planned Corrective Actions only affecting Peach Bottom:
i. Review special obligations of licensed operators and supervisors
in Peach Bottom licensed operator training program, including Peach
Bottom operating experience.
ii. Develop an assessment to verify the effectiveness of actions
associated with deliberate misconduct training.
iii. Perform Peach Bottom Site Employee Issues Advisory Council
(SEIAC) reviews regarding employee conduct issues/concerns, including
any apparent trends in these areas; and ensure corporate EIAC
emphasizes comparison of site data to identify trends or outliers.
iv. Repeat Peach Bottom training module on deliberate misconduct
for new employees and current Peach Bottom personnel in 2010,
emphasizing the impact of deliberate misconduct on nuclear safety
culture.
b. Planned Corrective Actions affecting all Exelon operating
nuclear facilities:
i. Include deliberate misconduct training in the fleet-wide
Supervisory Development Program for new supervisors.
ii. Implement Peach Bottom training module fleet-wide, emphasizing
the impact of deliberate misconduct on nuclear safety culture. Exelon
will also review its current contractor training on deliberate
misconduct and add the training module, if necessary.
iii. Provide additional information fleet-wide, to educate the
workforce on BOP, Fitness-for-Duty requirements, and Employee
Assistance Program services.
c. Planned Corrective Actions affecting the nuclear industry:
i. Provide lessons learned-type article to Professional Reactor
Operators Society (PROS) requesting consideration for inclusion in
industry newsletter.
ii. Provide lessons learned-type article to NEI requesting
consideration for inclusion in its industry newsletter.
iii. Discuss with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
the possibility of incorporating into its supervisor and operations
development programs, a module regarding the significance and impact of
deliberate misconduct.
4. Exelon agreed to complete the actions applicable only to Peach
Bottom after issuance of an NRC Confirmatory Order, by June 30, 2010,
and to send the NRC a letter informing the agency that the actions are
complete, within 30 days of their completion, to facilitate NRC
confirmatory reviews. Exelon also agreed to complete the remaining
corrective actions after issuance of the NRC Confirmatory Order, by
September 30, 2010, and to send the NRC a letter informing the agency
that the actions are complete, within 30 days of their completion, to
facilitate NRC confirmatory reviews.
5. In light of the corrective actions that Exelon took as noted in
Item 2, as well as the additional actions Exelon committed to as
described in Item 3, the NRC agreed to not issue a Notice of Violation
or civil penalty for the two violations that are the subject of this
ADR.
6. Exelon agreed to issuance of a Confirmatory Order confirming
this agreement that describes the two violations and the classification
of the violation involving the RO at Severity Level III. The NRC agreed
that, for this violation, the date for the escalated enforcement and
reactor oversight processes will be retroactive to the date that the
individual's employment was terminated (August 17, 2008). In accordance
with NRC practice, the Confirmatory Order and the letter forwarding it
to Exelon will be publicly available and accompanied by a press
release.
On November 19, 2009, Exelon consented to issuing this Order with
the commitments, which are described in Section V below. The Licensee
further agreed that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and
that it has waived its right to a hearing.
IV
Since Exelon has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC
concerns, as set forth in Section III, the NRC has concluded that its
concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Order.
I find that Exelon's commitments, as set forth in Section III, are
acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the
public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the
foregoing, I have also determined that public health and safety require
that the Licensee's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on
the above and Exelon's consent, this Order is immediately effective
upon issuance.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, it is hereby ordered,
effective immediately that Exelon shall:
A. Complete the following actions by June 30, 2010, and send the
NRC a letter informing the agency that the actions are complete within
30 days of their completion:
a. Review special obligations of licensed operators and supervisors
in Peach Bottom licensed operator training program, including Peach
Bottom operating experience.
b. Develop an assessment to verify the effectiveness of actions
associated with deliberate misconduct training.
c. Perform Peach Bottom Site Employee Issues Advisory Council
(SEIAC) reviews regarding employee conduct issues/concerns, including
any apparent trends in these areas; and ensure corporate EIAC
emphasizes comparison of site data to identify trends or outliers.
d. Repeat Peach Bottom training module on deliberate misconduct for
new employees and current Peach Bottom personnel in 2010, emphasizing
the impact of deliberate misconduct on nuclear safety culture.
B. Complete the following actions by September 30, 2010, and send
the NRC a letter informing the agency that the actions are complete
within 30 days of their completion:
a. Include deliberate misconduct training in the fleet-wide
Supervisory Development Program for new supervisors.
b. Implement Peach Bottom training module fleet-wide, emphasizing
the impact of deliberate misconduct on nuclear safety culture. Exelon
will also review its current contractor training on deliberate
misconduct and add the training module, if necessary.
c. Provide additional information fleet-wide, to educate the
workforce on BOP, Fitness-for-Duty requirements, and Employee
Assistance Program services.
d. Provide lessons learned-type article to Professional Reactor
Operators Society (PROS) requesting consideration for inclusion in
industry newsletter.
e. Provide lessons learned-type article to NEI requesting
consideration for inclusion in its industry newsletter.
f. Discuss with INPO the possibility of incorporating into its
supervisor and operations development programs, a module regarding the
significance and impact of deliberate misconduct.
The NRC Region I Regional Administrator may relax or rescind, in
[[Page 66158]]
writing, any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Exelon of
good cause.
VI
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than Exelon, may request a hearing within 20 days of its publication in
the Federal Register. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension.
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 (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). 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 an exemption 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 participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant 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
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing 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 using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
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. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
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, or the 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.
If a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by
this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d)
and (f).
[[Page 66159]]
If the hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and
place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered
at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be
sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, this Order shall be
final 20 days from the date of its publication in the Federal Register
without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for
requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing
request has not been received.
A request for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness
of this order.
Dated this the 1st day of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-29660 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P