Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 32509-32516 [2010-13617]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm.
295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail
to splimpto@nsf.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request
for Clearance for Evaluation of the
National Science Foundation’s (NSF)
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
(Noyce) Program.
Title of Collection: Evaluation of the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
Program.
OMB Control No.: 3145–(NEW)
Expiration Date of Approval: Not
applicable.
Abstract: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) requests a three-year
clearance for research, evaluation and
data collection (e.g., surveys and
interviews) about the Noyce Program.
NSF established the Robert Noyce
Teacher Scholarship Program to
encourage talented STEM majors and
professionals to become K–12
mathematics and science teachers. The
Noyce Program awards scholarships,
stipends, fellowships and internships to
support the preparation of K–12
teachers in mathematics and science.
For specific details and the most
updated information regarding Noyce
program operations, please visit the NSF
Web site at: https://www.nsf.gov/
funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5733.
The study will survey Principal
Investigators of the Noyce Program,
Science, Technology, Engineering, or
Mathematics (STEM) Faculty involved
in the Noyce Program, Noyce
Recipients, and K–12 Principals in
schools where former recipients are
teaching. Noyce recipients may be
undergraduates majoring in a science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics
(STEM) discipline; STEM postbaccalaureates; STEM professionals; or
exemplary mathematics and science
teachers, who have master’s degrees.
The Noyce program evaluation will
include all awards made between 2003
and 2009.
NSF has contracted a program
evaluation of the Noyce Program, to be
conducted by Abt Associates Inc.
Through this evaluation of the Noyce
Program, NSF aims to examine and
document:
(1) The strategies and programs Noyce
grantees use to recruit and retain teacher
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
candidates, both during teacher
preparation and during the induction
period;
(2) The institutional change occurring
within STEM departments regarding the
preparation of future mathematics and
science teachers;
(3) The relationships between
characteristics of the Noyce Program,
types of Noyce recipients,
characteristics of the schools in which
Noyce recipients teach, and recipients’
plans to teach in high-need schools and
to pursue leadership roles; and
(4) The impacts of the Noyce program
on teacher recruitment and retention
and on teacher effectiveness.
The methods of data collection will
include both primary and secondary
data collections. Primary data collection
will include surveys and telephone
interviews; secondary data sources
include open sources, records at NSF
and grantee institutions, and state
departments of education and teacher
retirement funds. There is a bounded (or
limited) number of respondents within
the general public who will be affected
by this research, including current and
former Noyce grantees and associated
faculty, STEM majors, postbaccalaureates, or professionals eligible
who are supported by Noyce funding,
and K–12 principals and district
administrators. NSF will use the Noyce
program evaluation data and analyses to
provide information and/or respond to
requests from Committees of Visitors
(COV), Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, particularly as
related to the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) and the
Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) or its replacement. NSF will
also use the program evaluation to share
the broader impacts of the Noyce
program with the general public.
Respondents: Individuals, Federal
Government, State, Local or Tribal
Government and not-for-profit
institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
5,000.
Burden on the Public: 2,400 hours.
Dated: June 3, 2010.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2010–13774 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32509
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0190]
Notice Applications and Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses
Involving Proposed No Significant
Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Order
Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-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 to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the
Commission the authority to issue and
make immediately effective any
amendment to an operating license
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of
amendments containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI).
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
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92(c), 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.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32510
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
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.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch
(RADB), 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. Written comments may
also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492–
3446. 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.
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 amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 requestor/
petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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
(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-
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 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 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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32511
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.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
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 electronically 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.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and
Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: March
23, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information. The proposed amendment
would revise Technical Specification
Section 6.9.1.6 to add the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
topical report (TR) EMF–2103(P)(A),
Revision 0, ‘‘Realistic Large-Break LOCA
[Loss-of-Coolant Accident] Methodology
for Pressurized Water Reactors,’’ to the
Core Operating Limits Report
methodologies list. This change will
allow the use of the thermal-hydraulic
computer analysis code S–RELAP5 for
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
Chapter 15 realistic large-break LOCA in
the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit 1 safety analyses. TR EMF–
2103(P)(A), Revision 0, was approved by
the NRC on April 9, 2003, for the
application of the S–RELAP5 thermalhydraulic analysis computer code to
FSAR Chapter 15 realistic large-break
LOCA.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
32512
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 topical report has been reviewed and
approved by the NRC for use in determining
core operating limits and for evaluation of
large break loss-of-coolant accidents. The
core operating limits to be developed using
the new methodologies for HNP [Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1] will be
established in accordance with the applicable
limitations as documented in the NRC Safety
Evaluation Report. In the April 9, 2003, NRC
SE [safety evaluation], the NRC concluded
that the S–RELAP5 RLBLOCA [realistic largebreak loss-of-coolant accident] methodology
is acceptable for referencing in licensing
applications in accordance with the stated
limitations.
The proposed change enables the use of
new methodology to re-analyze a large break
loss-of-coolant accident. It does not, by itself,
impact the current design bases. Revised
analysis may either result in continued
conformance with design bases or may
change the design bases. If design basis
changes result from a revised analysis, the
specific design changes will be evaluated in
accordance with HNP design change
procedures and 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed change does not involve
physical changes to any plant structure,
system, or component. Therefore, the
probability of occurrence for a previously
analyzed accident is not significantly
increased.
The consequences of a previously analyzed
accident are dependent on the initial
conditions assumed for the analysis, the
behavior of the fission product barriers
during the analyzed accident, the availability
and successful functioning of the equipment
assumed to operate in response to the
analyzed event, and the setpoints at which
these actions are initiated.
The proposed methodologies will ensure
that the plant continues to meet applicable
design and safety analyses acceptance
criteria. The proposed change does not affect
the performance of any equipment used to
mitigate the consequences of an analyzed
accident. As a result, no analysis
assumptions are impacted and there are no
adverse effects on the factors that contribute
to offsite or onsite dose as a result of an
accident. The proposed change does not
affect setpoints that initiate protective or
mitigative actions. The proposed change
ensures that plant structures, systems, and
components are maintained consistent with
the safety analysis and licensing bases.
Therefore, this amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of a previously
analyzed accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any
physical alteration of plant systems,
structures, or components. No new or
different equipment is being installed and no
installed equipment is being operated in a
different manner. There is no change to the
parameters within which the plant is
normally operated or in the setpoints that
initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a
result, no new failure modes are being
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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.
There is no impact on any margin of safety
resulting from the incorporation of this new
topical report into the Technical
Specifications. If design basis changes result
from a revised analysis that uses these new
methodologies, the specific design changes
will be evaluated in accordance with HNP
design change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59.
Any potential reduction in the margin of
safety would be evaluated for that specific
design change.
Therefore, this amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T.
Conley, Associate General Counsel II—
Legal Department, Progress Energy
Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March
25, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes revise the operating license and
technical specifications (TSs) to
implement an increase of approximately
1.65% in rated thermal power from the
current licensed thermal power of 3458
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3515 MWt.
The proposed changes are based on
increased feedwater flow measurement
accuracy, which will be achieved by
utilizing Cameron International
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(formerly Caldon) CheckPIus Leading
Edge Flow Meter ultrasonic flow
measurement instrumentation. The
proposed changes also modify certain
TS setpoints and channel surveillance
requirements associated with average
power range monitor simulated thermal
power. Additionally, the proposed
changes include a modification to the
standby liquid control system (SLCS),
that allows operators to select two
pumps instead of three for the automatic
start function on an anticipated
transient without scram (ATWS) signal.
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, with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes [other than those
associated with the SLCS] do not affect
system design or operation and thus do not
create any new accident initiators or increase
the probability of an accident previously
evaluated. All accident mitigation systems
will function as designed, and all
performance requirements for these systems
have been evaluated and were found
acceptable. The SLCS performance
requirements will be met with completion of
the SLCS modification described in the
proposed changes.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor
vessel, reactor internals, control rod drive
housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their
applicable structural limits and will continue
to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability
of a structural failure of these components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will
continue to perform their intended design
functions during normal and accident
conditions. The balance of plant systems and
components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue
to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability
of a failure of these components. The safety
relief valves and containment isolation
valves meet design sizing requirements at the
uprated power level. Because the integrity of
the plant will not be affected by operation at
the uprated condition, [Exelon Generation
Company, LLC] EGC has concluded that all
structures, systems, and components
required to mitigate a transient remain
capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
A majority of the current safety analyses
remain applicable, since they were
performed at power levels that bound
operation at a core power of 3515 MWt.
Other analyses previously performed at the
current power level have either been
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
evaluated or re-performed for the increased
power level. The results demonstrate that
acceptance criteria of the applicable analyses
continue to be met at the uprated conditions.
The anticipated transient without scram
event criteria will be met with completion of
the SLCS modification described in the
proposed changes. As such, all applicable
accident analyses continue to comply with
the relevant event acceptance criteria. The
analyses performed to assess the effects of
mass and energy releases remain valid. The
source terms used to assess radiological
consequences have been reviewed and
determined to bound operation at the uprated
condition.
The proposed changes add test
requirements to TS instrument functions
[that are changed by this license amendment
and are] related to those variables that have
a significant safety function to ensure that
instruments will function as required to
initiate protective systems or actuate
mitigating systems at the point assumed in
the applicable safety analysis. Surveillance
tests are not an initiator to any accident
previously evaluated. As such, the
probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
added test requirements ensure that the
systems and components required by the TS
are capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis.
The SLCS modification does not affect the
probability of an accident, as the control
system is not an initiator in any accident.
The modification maintains all of the
assumptions in the analyses of events for
which the system is designed. Thus, the
response to these events is unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced [that create a new or different
accident than previously evaluated] as a
result of the proposed changes. All systems,
structures, and components previously
required for the mitigation of a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design functions. The proposed changes have
no adverse effects on any safety-related
system or component and do not challenge
the performance or integrity of any safetyrelated system.
The proposed changes regarding
instrument testing do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed,
nor will there be a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation). The
change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis, but ensures that the
instruments behave as assumed in the
accident analysis. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
The SLCS system is not an initiator of any
accidents.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation at the uprated power condition
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. Analyses of the primary
fission product barriers have concluded that
relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both
from the standpoint of the integrity of the
primary fission product barrier, and from the
standpoint of compliance with the required
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all
evaluations have been performed using
methods that have either been reviewed or
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards.
The proposed changes add test
requirements that establish instrument
performance criteria in TS that are currently
required by plant procedures. The testing
methods and acceptance criteria for systems,
structures, and components, specified in
applicable codes and standards (or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis including the updated
final safety analysis report. There is no
impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria
as described in the plant licensing basis
because no change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions. The SLCS
modification maintains all of the
assumptions in the analyses of events for
which the system is designed. Thus, the
response to these events is unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, and with the changes noted
above in square brackets, 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: J. Bradley
Fewell, Esquire, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February
25, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise Technical Specifications
to allow temporary changes to the
secondary containment boundary
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32513
during shutdown conditions.
Specifically, the proposed change
would allow the Reactor Building
secondary containment boundary
associated with the Trunnion Room to
be relocated from the Trunnion Room
outer wall and door to the Reactor
Building inner walls and penetrations
located inside the Trunnion Room.
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. [The proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.]
The proposed changes do not involve any
modifications to any structures, components,
or systems that would affect the probability
of an accident previously evaluated in the
Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed
changes do not significantly increase the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The Secondary Containment structure and
the [Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS)],
and any component thereof, are not accident
initiators. No other accident initiator is
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
There are no changes or modifications in
the function or operation of the SGTS being
proposed to temporarily relocate the
Trunnion Room Secondary Containment
boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions.
Therefore, changing the Secondary
Containment boundary for the Trunnion
Room will not result in any change to the
frequency of an accident or transient
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The malfunction of any portion of
Secondary Containment, including the SGTS,
would have the same results and
consequences regardless of whether the
Secondary Containment boundary is
maintained at the Trunnion Room door or
inside the Trunnion Room.
Relocating the Secondary Containment
boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions
will help to improve Secondary Containment
integrity. Secondary Containment integrity is
maintained by the single Trunnion Room
door. The relocated Secondary Containment
boundary established inside the Trunnion
Room will be more substantial since the
penetrations will be blocked and sealed. Less
air will be drawn into the Reactor Building
during SGTS operation and a larger negative
pressure will be maintained in the Reactor
Building. As a result, better Secondary
Containment response would be expected
during any postulated accidents or transients
in this configuration.
Since the proposed change to relocate the
Secondary Containment boundary will only
be implemented when the plant is in a Cold
Shutdown condition, when a pipe break
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32514
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
accident is not credible and isolation of the
Main Steam and Feedwater Supply lines will
be maintained by isolation of either the
inboard or outboard isolation valves or other
engineered isolation mechanisms/devices
within Secondary Containment; any release
from the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV or any
attached system will be contained in the
Reactor Building. Once the RPV head is
removed, any gaseous release due to fuel
damage from any accident or transient would
be drawn into the Reactor Building and
through the SGTS as designed. The drop of
a fuel bundle and postulated release of
fission product gases would be drawn into
the Reactor Building and through the SGTS
as designed. Because the Secondary
Containment will be maintained under
negative pressure (i.e., greater than ¥0.25″
water column) when required and the
penetrations inside the Trunnion Room will
be blocked and sealed, all releases in the
Reactor Building, including in the RPV and
Spent Fuel Pool, will be contained within
Secondary Containment and will not be
released into the Trunnion Room. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information,
the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. [The proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.]
The proposed changes will not create the
possibility for a new or different type of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes do not
involve any modifications to any structure,
systems, or components that would create the
possibility of an accident. The Secondary
Containment, SGTS[,] and any related
equipment important to safety will continue
to operate as designed. Component integrity
is not challenged. The changes do not result
in more adverse conditions or result in any
increase in the challenges to safety systems.
The systems affected by the changes are used
to mitigate the consequences of an accident
that would have already occurred. The
proposed changes do not allow reduction of
the mitigative function of these systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
This temporary configuration change
removes the Trunnion Room outer wall and
door as part of Secondary Containment
during Cold Shutdown and allows the
Technical Specifications (TS) required
administrative controls for the Trunnion
Room door to be relaxed. Secondary
Containment integrity will be maintained in
accordance with applicable TS requirements
and any releases from the RPV or its attached
systems will be contained within Secondary
Containment and will not be released into
the Trunnion Room. All releases within
Secondary Containment will be processed by
the SGTS. This activity does not change the
design, function[,] or operation of any
structure, system, or component important to
safety other than removing the Trunnion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Room as part of the Secondary Containment
boundary. Therefore, the proposed activity
does not create a possibility for an accident
of a different type.
The Secondary Containment, with the
exception of the SGTS, is a passive system
that cannot and will not result in any
malfunction of a structure, system, or
component important to safety. No change to
the function or operation of the SGTS is
being considered as a result of the proposed
change to temporarily relocate the Trunnion
Room Secondary Containment boundary
during Cold Shutdown conditions. Changing
the Secondary Containment boundary for the
Trunnion Room will not result in any
malfunction to a structure, system, or
component important to safety. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not create a
possibility for a malfunction of a structure,
system, or component important to safety
with a different result than any previously
evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information,
the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. [The proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.]
The Secondary Containment provides
protection to the public by containing any
radioactive releases that result from
transients or accidents contained in the
[Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station]
design bases. With the exception of the
SGTS, the Secondary Containment is a
passive system that cannot and will not
result in any accident or transient evaluated
in the UFSAR. No change to the function or
operation of the SGTS is being proposed
when relocating the Trunnion Room
Secondary Containment boundary during
Cold Shutdown conditions.
The proposed changes to relocate the
Trunnion Room Secondary Containment
boundary from the outer wall and door, to
the inner walls and penetrations inside the
Trunnion Room during Cold Shutdown
conditions will not result in any change to
the frequency of an accident or transient
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
TS administrative controls will be
instituted in support of relocating the
Secondary Containment boundary and TS
required surveillance testing will be
completed to ensure that Secondary
Containment integrity can be maintained in
the modified configuration within design
parameters.
Secondary Containment integrity will be
maintained as required, and any release from
the RPV or any attached system will be
contained in the Reactor Building. The
Secondary Containment and SGTS will
continue to function as designed in the event
of an accident or transient that requires the
Secondary Containment to act as a fission
product barrier to prevent a radioactive
release.
The proposed changes do not adversely
impact the operation of any plant structure,
system, or component important to safety.
The Secondary Containment and the SGTS
will continue to function and respond as
designed. The proposed changes do not
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
result in a departure from a method of
evaluation described in the UFSAR used in
establishing the design bases or in the safety
analyses.
Therefore, based on the above information,
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, and with the changes noted
above in square brackets, 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: Mr. J. Bradley
Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al.,
Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket
No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
A. This Order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to this
proceeding may request access to
documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of
this notice of hearing and opportunity to
petition for leave to intervene, any
potential party who believes access to
SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
notice may request such access. A
‘‘potential party’’ is any person who
intends to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR
2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after
publication will not be considered
absent a showing of good cause for the
late filing, addressing why the request
could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter
requesting permission to access SUNSI
to the office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
and provide a copy to the Associate
General Counsel for Hearings,
Enforcement and Administration, Office
of the General Counsel, Washington, DC
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
20555–0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for
the Office of the Secretary and the
Office of the General Counsel are
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and
OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1
The request must include the following
information:
(1) A description of the licensing
action with a citation to this Federal
Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the
potential party and a description of the
potential party’s particularized interest
that could be harmed by the action
identified in C.(1);
(3) The identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and
the requestor’s basis for the need for the
information in order to meaningfully
participate in this adjudicatory
proceeding. In particular, the request
must explain why publicly-available
versions of the information requested
would not be sufficient to provide the
basis and specificity for a proffered
contention;
D. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under paragraph
C.(3) the NRC staff will determine
within 10 days of receipt of the request
whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to
believe the petitioner is likely to
establish standing to participate in this
NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the
requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2)
above, the NRC staff will notify the
requestor in writing that access to
SUNSI has been granted. The written
notification will contain instructions on
how the requestor may obtain copies of
the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to
those documents. These conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting
forth terms and conditions to prevent
the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual
who will be granted access to SUNSI.
F. Filing of Contentions. Any
contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received
as a result of the request made for
SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no
later than 25 days after the requestor is
granted access to that information.
However, if more than 25 days remain
between the date the petitioner is
granted access to the information and
the deadline for filing all other
contentions (as established in the notice
of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff either after
a determination on standing and need
for access, or after a determination on
trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC
staff shall immediately notify the
requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the
NRC staff’s adverse determination by
filing a challenge within 5 days of
receipt of that determination with: (a)
The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer
has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an administrative law judge
32515
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A
party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination
granting access to SUNSI whose release
would harm that party’s interest
independent of the proceeding. Such a
challenge must be filed with the Chief
Administrative Judge within 5 days of
the notification by the NRC staff of its
grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff
determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal
process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The
availability of interlocutory review by
the Commission of orders ruling on
such NRC staff determinations (whether
granting or denying access) is governed
by 10 CFR 2.311.3
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes
the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under
these procedures.
It Is So Ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING
Day
Event/Activity
0 ...............
Publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests.
Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the
potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does
not require access to SUNSI (+ 25 Answers to petition for intervention; + 7 requestor/petitioner reply).
10 .............
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60 .............
1 While a request for hearing or petition to
intervene in this proceeding must comply with the
filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E–Filing Rule,’’
the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief
Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not
yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline
for the receipt of the written access request.
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3 Requestors should note that the filing
requirements of the NRC’s E–Filing Rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
32516
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued
Day
Event/Activity
20 .............
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
(Receipt + 30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective
order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
(Contention receipt + 25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
25 .............
30 .............
40 .............
A ..............
A + 3 ........
A + 28 ......
A + 53 ......
A + 60 ......
>A + 60 ....
[FR Doc. 2010–13617 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; Docket
Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC–2010–0116]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Virginia Electric and Power Company;
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2; Surry Power Station, Unit Nos.1
and 2; Exemption
1.0 Background
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(the licensee) is the holder of Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–4, NPF–7,
DPR–32, and DPR–37, which authorize
operation of the North Anna Power
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NAPS) and
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
(SPS) located in Lake Anna, Virginia,
and Surry, Virginia, respectively. The
license provides, among other things,
that the facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC, the
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facilities consist of two
pressurized-water reactors each located
in Lake Anna, Virginia, and Surry,
Virginia, respectively.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 20,
‘‘Standards for Protection Against
Radiation’’ Subpart H, ‘‘Respiratory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Protection and Controls to Restrict
Internal Exposure in Restricted Areas,’’
establishes the requirements for
implementing a respiratory protection
program. These programmatic
requirements ensure that worker doses
from airborne radioactive materials are
maintained as low as reasonably
achievable.
In summary, by letter dated November
24, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated February 11, 2010, the licensee
requested an exemption from 10 CFR
20.1703(a), 10 CFR 20.1703(g)(1), and
certain requirements of 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix A, Footnote ‘‘a,’’ to use the
Mine Safety Appliances, Inc. (MSA),
model Firehawk 7 Air Mask selfcontained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
with a gas mixture of 35% oxygen and
65% nitrogen at SPS and NAPS. The
licensee’s letter dated November 24,
2009, contains proprietary information
and accordingly is not available to the
public. In addition, the licensee
requested NRC authorization under 10
CFR 20.1703(b) to use these SCBAs in
a configuration not certified by the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). The
regulations in 10 CFR 20.1703(b) allow
a licensee to seek authorization to use
respiratory equipment that has not been
tested and certified by NIOSH. When
seeking authorization to use equipment
not certified by NIOSH, the licensee is
required to demonstrate by testing that
a respirator is capable of safely
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
providing the necessary level of
protection under the anticipated
conditions of use. An exemption from
20.1703(a) and an exemption from the
protection factors listed in 10 CFR part
20, appendix A is not necessary when
the NRC grants authorization under
20.1703(b) for use of the respiratory
equipment.
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the
Commission may, upon application by a
licensee or upon its own initiative, grant
an exemption from the requirements of
10 CFR part 20, as it deems appropriate
or necessary to protect health or to
minimize danger to life or property.
Authorized by Law
This exemption would allow the use
of MSA model Firehawk M7 Air Mask
SCBA with a gas mixture of 35% oxygen
and 65% nitrogen. Section 20.1703(b)
permits a licensee to request NRC
approval to use equipment which has
not been tested or certified by NIOSH.
The application must supply evidence
that equipment is capable of providing
the proposed degree of protection under
the anticipated conditions of use.
Dominion has demonstrated, by
documented third-party testing
conducted by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and Interek,
that the equipment will continue to
provide the proposed degree of
protection under the anticipated
conditions of use. Dominion also has
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32509-32516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0190]
Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
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 to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92(c), 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.
[[Page 32510]]
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, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), 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.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
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.
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 amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition 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 requestor/petitioner
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
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner 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
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 (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-
[[Page 32511]]
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.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
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 electronically 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.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 23, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.6 to add
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved topical report
(TR) EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA [Loss-of-
Coolant Accident] Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' to the
Core Operating Limits Report methodologies list. This change will allow
the use of the thermal-hydraulic computer analysis code S-RELAP5 for
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 realistic large-
break LOCA in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 safety
analyses. TR EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, was approved by the NRC on
April 9, 2003, for the application of the S-RELAP5 thermal-hydraulic
analysis computer code to FSAR Chapter 15 realistic large-break LOCA.
[[Page 32512]]
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 topical report has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for
use in determining core operating limits and for evaluation of large
break loss-of-coolant accidents. The core operating limits to be
developed using the new methodologies for HNP [Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1] will be established in accordance with
the applicable limitations as documented in the NRC Safety
Evaluation Report. In the April 9, 2003, NRC SE [safety evaluation],
the NRC concluded that the S-RELAP5 RLBLOCA [realistic large-break
loss-of-coolant accident] methodology is acceptable for referencing
in licensing applications in accordance with the stated limitations.
The proposed change enables the use of new methodology to re-
analyze a large break loss-of-coolant accident. It does not, by
itself, impact the current design bases. Revised analysis may either
result in continued conformance with design bases or may change the
design bases. If design basis changes result from a revised
analysis, the specific design changes will be evaluated in
accordance with HNP design change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any
plant structure, system, or component. Therefore, the probability of
occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not significantly
increased.
The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of
the fission product barriers during the analyzed accident, the
availability and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to
operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at
which these actions are initiated.
The proposed methodologies will ensure that the plant continues
to meet applicable design and safety analyses acceptance criteria.
The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment
used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. As a
result, no analysis assumptions are impacted and there are no
adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite
dose as a result of an accident. The proposed change does not affect
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. The
proposed change ensures that plant structures, systems, and
components are maintained consistent with the safety analysis and
licensing bases.
Therefore, this amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed
accident.
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 change does not involve any physical alteration of
plant systems, structures, or components. No new or different
equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being
operated in a different manner. There is no change to the parameters
within which the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints that
initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a result, no new
failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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.
There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the
incorporation of this new topical report into the Technical
Specifications. If design basis changes result from a revised
analysis that uses these new methodologies, the specific design
changes will be evaluated in accordance with HNP design change
procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Any potential reduction in the margin
of safety would be evaluated for that specific design change.
Therefore, this amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes revise the operating license and technical specifications (TSs)
to implement an increase of approximately 1.65% in rated thermal power
from the current licensed thermal power of 3458 megawatts thermal (MWt)
to 3515 MWt. The proposed changes are based on increased feedwater flow
measurement accuracy, which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron
International (formerly Caldon) CheckPIus Leading Edge Flow Meter
ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation. The proposed changes also
modify certain TS setpoints and channel surveillance requirements
associated with average power range monitor simulated thermal power.
Additionally, the proposed changes include a modification to the
standby liquid control system (SLCS), that allows operators to select
two pumps instead of three for the automatic start function on an
anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) signal.
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, with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes [other than those associated with the SLCS]
do not affect system design or operation and thus do not create any
new accident initiators or increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated. All accident mitigation systems will function
as designed, and all performance requirements for these systems have
been evaluated and were found acceptable. The SLCS performance
requirements will be met with completion of the SLCS modification
described in the proposed changes.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural
failure of these components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their
intended design functions. Thus, there is no increase in the
probability of a failure of these components. The safety relief
valves and containment isolation valves meet design sizing
requirements at the uprated power level. Because the integrity of
the plant will not be affected by operation at the uprated
condition, [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] EGC has concluded that
all structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a
transient remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
A majority of the current safety analyses remain applicable,
since they were performed at power levels that bound operation at a
core power of 3515 MWt. Other analyses previously performed at the
current power level have either been
[[Page 32513]]
evaluated or re-performed for the increased power level. The results
demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the applicable analyses
continue to be met at the uprated conditions. The anticipated
transient without scram event criteria will be met with completion
of the SLCS modification described in the proposed changes. As such,
all applicable accident analyses continue to comply with the
relevant event acceptance criteria. The analyses performed to assess
the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. The source
terms used to assess radiological consequences have been reviewed
and determined to bound operation at the uprated condition.
The proposed changes add test requirements to TS instrument
functions [that are changed by this license amendment and are]
related to those variables that have a significant safety function
to ensure that instruments will function as required to initiate
protective systems or actuate mitigating systems at the point
assumed in the applicable safety analysis. Surveillance tests are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As such, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The added test requirements ensure that the
systems and components required by the TS are capable of performing
any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
The SLCS modification does not affect the probability of an
accident, as the control system is not an initiator in any accident.
The modification maintains all of the assumptions in the analyses of
events for which the system is designed. Thus, the response to these
events is unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced [that create a new or different
accident than previously evaluated] as a result of the proposed
changes. All systems, structures, and components previously required
for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse
effects on any safety-related system or component and do not
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
The proposed changes regarding instrument testing do not involve
a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type
of equipment will be installed, nor will there be a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation). The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis, but ensures that the
instruments behave as assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
The SLCS system is not an initiator of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation at the uprated power condition does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Analyses of the primary
fission product barriers have concluded that relevant design
criteria remain satisfied, both from the standpoint of the integrity
of the primary fission product barrier, and from the standpoint of
compliance with the required acceptance criteria. As appropriate,
all evaluations have been performed using methods that have either
been reviewed or approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or
that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and
standards.
The proposed changes add test requirements that establish
instrument performance criteria in TS that are currently required by
plant procedures. The testing methods and acceptance criteria for
systems, structures, and components, specified in applicable codes
and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis
including the updated final safety analysis report. There is no
impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the
plant licensing basis because no change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions. The SLCS modification maintains all of the
assumptions in the analyses of events for which the system is
designed. Thus, the response to these events is unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specifications to allow temporary
changes to the secondary containment boundary during shutdown
conditions. Specifically, the proposed change would allow the Reactor
Building secondary containment boundary associated with the Trunnion
Room to be relocated from the Trunnion Room outer wall and door to the
Reactor Building inner walls and penetrations located inside the
Trunnion Room.
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. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.]
The proposed changes do not involve any modifications to any
structures, components, or systems that would affect the probability
of an accident previously evaluated in the Oyster Creek Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed
changes do not significantly increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The Secondary Containment structure and the [Standby Gas
Treatment System (SGTS)], and any component thereof, are not
accident initiators. No other accident initiator is affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
There are no changes or modifications in the function or
operation of the SGTS being proposed to temporarily relocate the
Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown
conditions. Therefore, changing the Secondary Containment boundary
for the Trunnion Room will not result in any change to the frequency
of an accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The malfunction of any portion of Secondary Containment,
including the SGTS, would have the same results and consequences
regardless of whether the Secondary Containment boundary is
maintained at the Trunnion Room door or inside the Trunnion Room.
Relocating the Secondary Containment boundary during Cold
Shutdown conditions will help to improve Secondary Containment
integrity. Secondary Containment integrity is maintained by the
single Trunnion Room door. The relocated Secondary Containment
boundary established inside the Trunnion Room will be more
substantial since the penetrations will be blocked and sealed. Less
air will be drawn into the Reactor Building during SGTS operation
and a larger negative pressure will be maintained in the Reactor
Building. As a result, better Secondary Containment response would
be expected during any postulated accidents or transients in this
configuration.
Since the proposed change to relocate the Secondary Containment
boundary will only be implemented when the plant is in a Cold
Shutdown condition, when a pipe break
[[Page 32514]]
accident is not credible and isolation of the Main Steam and
Feedwater Supply lines will be maintained by isolation of either the
inboard or outboard isolation valves or other engineered isolation
mechanisms/devices within Secondary Containment; any release from
the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV or any attached system will be
contained in the Reactor Building. Once the RPV head is removed, any
gaseous release due to fuel damage from any accident or transient
would be drawn into the Reactor Building and through the SGTS as
designed. The drop of a fuel bundle and postulated release of
fission product gases would be drawn into the Reactor Building and
through the SGTS as designed. Because the Secondary Containment will
be maintained under negative pressure (i.e., greater than -0.25''
water column) when required and the penetrations inside the Trunnion
Room will be blocked and sealed, all releases in the Reactor
Building, including in the RPV and Spent Fuel Pool, will be
contained within Secondary Containment and will not be released into
the Trunnion Room. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. [The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.]
The proposed changes will not create the possibility for a new
or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve any modifications to
any structure, systems, or components that would create the
possibility of an accident. The Secondary Containment, SGTS[,] and
any related equipment important to safety will continue to operate
as designed. Component integrity is not challenged. The changes do
not result in more adverse conditions or result in any increase in
the challenges to safety systems. The systems affected by the
changes are used to mitigate the consequences of an accident that
would have already occurred. The proposed changes do not allow
reduction of the mitigative function of these systems. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
This temporary configuration change removes the Trunnion Room
outer wall and door as part of Secondary Containment during Cold
Shutdown and allows the Technical Specifications (TS) required
administrative controls for the Trunnion Room door to be relaxed.
Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained in accordance
with applicable TS requirements and any releases from the RPV or its
attached systems will be contained within Secondary Containment and
will not be released into the Trunnion Room. All releases within
Secondary Containment will be processed by the SGTS. This activity
does not change the design, function[,] or operation of any
structure, system, or component important to safety other than
removing the Trunnion Room as part of the Secondary Containment
boundary. Therefore, the proposed activity does not create a
possibility for an accident of a different type.
The Secondary Containment, with the exception of the SGTS, is a
passive system that cannot and will not result in any malfunction of
a structure, system, or component important to safety. No change to
the function or operation of the SGTS is being considered as a
result of the proposed change to temporarily relocate the Trunnion
Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions.
Changing the Secondary Containment boundary for the Trunnion Room
will not result in any malfunction to a structure, system, or
component important to safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not create a possibility for a malfunction of a structure, system,
or component important to safety with a different result than any
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.]
The Secondary Containment provides protection to the public by
containing any radioactive releases that result from transients or
accidents contained in the [Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station]
design bases. With the exception of the SGTS, the Secondary
Containment is a passive system that cannot and will not result in
any accident or transient evaluated in the UFSAR. No change to the
function or operation of the SGTS is being proposed when relocating
the Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold
Shutdown conditions.
The proposed changes to relocate the Trunnion Room Secondary
Containment boundary from the outer wall and door, to the inner
walls and penetrations inside the Trunnion Room during Cold Shutdown
conditions will not result in any change to the frequency of an
accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
TS administrative controls will be instituted in support of
relocating the Secondary Containment boundary and TS required
surveillance testing will be completed to ensure that Secondary
Containment integrity can be maintained in the modified
configuration within design parameters.
Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained as required,
and any release from the RPV or any attached system will be
contained in the Reactor Building. The Secondary Containment and
SGTS will continue to function as designed in the event of an
accident or transient that requires the Secondary Containment to act
as a fission product barrier to prevent a radioactive release.
The proposed changes do not adversely impact the operation of
any plant structure, system, or component important to safety. The
Secondary Containment and the SGTS will continue to function and
respond as designed. The proposed changes do not result in a
departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in
establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.
Therefore, based on the above information, 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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the
request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC
[[Page 32515]]
20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both
offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the
Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.\1\ The
request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1);
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention;
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason
or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It Is So Ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................... Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for leave
to intervene, including order with instructions
for access requests.
10.................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing the
need for the information in order for the
potential party to participate meaningfully in
an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of
standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+
25 Answers to petition for intervention; + 7
requestor/petitioner reply).
[[Page 32516]]
20.................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe standing
can be established and shows need for SUNSI.
(NRC staff also informs any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information.) If NRC staff makes the
finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of
standing, NRC staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents).
25.................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no likelihood
of standing, the deadline for requestor/
petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to
reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC
staff files copy of access determination with
the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
Judge or other designated officer, as
appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need'' for
SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30.................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.................... (Receipt + 30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file motion
for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to
file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A..................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer
or other designated officer decision on motion
for protective order for access to sensitive
information (including schedule for providing
access and submission of contentions) or
decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent
with decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28................ Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing all
other contentions (as established in the notice
of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
that later deadline.
A + 53................ (Contention receipt + 25) Answers to contentions
whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60................ (Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply
to answers.
>A + 60............... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-13617 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P