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, 50759-50766 [2011-19984]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50759-50766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0174]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of license amendment request, opportunity to comment, 
opportunity to request a hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 15, 2011. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 17, 2011. Any potential party as 
defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal

[[Page 50760]]

Regulations (10 CFR), 2.4 who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified 
Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this 
notice must request document access by August 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0174 in the subject line 
of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form 
will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web 
site, https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be 
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC 
cautions you against including any information in your submission that 
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
    The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments 
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those 
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any 
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not 
include any information in their comments that they do not want 
publicly disclosed.
    You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0174. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-
492-3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, Announcements and 
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    You can access publicly available documents related to this notice 
using the following methods:
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine, 
and have copied for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's 
PDR, Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public 
can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 
PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and 
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-0174.

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, NRC, 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 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 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result in 
an emergency situation, 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.
    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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC 
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the 
NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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

[[Page 50761]]

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, then 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 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 identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the 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 the 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 the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
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 the 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 1-866-672-7640. 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

[[Page 50762]]

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 the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, 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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment revises the value of the single recirculation loop operation 
(SLO) safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical 
Specifications Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits].'' 
Specifically, the proposed change would replace the current SLO SLMCPR 
requirement for QCNPS Unit 1 with a new SLMCPR requirement. This 
proposed change does not affect the QCNPS Unit 1 two recirculation loop 
operation SLMCPR or either of the SLMCPR values for Unit 2. This change 
is needed to support the next cycle of operation (i.e., Cycle 22) for 
QCNPS Unit 1 for cycle exposure greater than 4000 MWd/MT, which is 
currently scheduled to occur in November 2011.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC-
approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, 
transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed 
change to revise the QCNPS Unit 1 SLO SLMCPR requirement 
conservatively establishes the SLMCPR at the value for a core of all 
SVEA-96 Optimal fuel, such that the fuel is protected during normal 
operation and during plant transients or anticipated operational 
occurrences (AOOs).
    The proposed SLMCPR value for QCNPS Unit 1 does not increase the 
probability of an evaluated accident. The change does not require 
any physical plant modifications, physically affect any plant 
components, or entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, no 
individual precursors of an accident are affected.
    The proposed change revises the SLO SLMCPR value for QCNPS Unit 
1 to protect the fuel during normal operation as well as during 
plant transients or AOOs. Operational limits will be established 
based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not 
violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion 
(i.e., that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience 
transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs) is met. Since 
the proposed change does not affect operability of plant systems 
designed to mitigate any consequences of accidents, the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated will not increase.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The proposed changes do not involve any plant configuration 
modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The 
proposed SLMCPR value does not result in the creation of any new 
precursors to an accident. The proposed change to revise the QCNPS 
Unit 1 SLO SLMCPR requirement assures that safety criteria are 
maintained for QCNPS Unit 1, Cycle 22.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 
99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling 
during normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not 
violated. The proposed change will ensure the current level of fuel 
protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that at least 99.9 
percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during 
normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not violated. The 
proposed SLMCPR value was developed using NRC-approved methods. 
Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the 
proposed SLMCPR value to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. 
This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that 
no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be in boiling 
transition if the MCPR limit is not violated) is met.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

[[Page 50763]]

    Based upon the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no 
significant hazards consideration is justified.

    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 
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN 
50-454, STN 50-455, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, 
Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor 
Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.'' The proposed change 
reflects the installation of bypass test capability.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) provide plant protection and are 
part of the accident mitigation response. The RTS and ESFAS 
functions do not themselves act as a precursor or an initiator for 
any transient or design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not significantly increase the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The structural and 
functional integrity of the RTS and ESFAS, or any other plant 
system, is unaffected. The proposed change does not alter or prevent 
the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing 
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Surveillance 
testing in the bypass condition will not cause any design or 
analysis acceptance criteria to be exceeded.
    Under the proposed change, the channel being tested may be 
bypassed. The number of available channels with one channel in 
bypass for testing will remain the same as the number of channels 
available when testing in trip. The number of channels to trip will 
be unchanged when testing in bypass while the number of channels to 
trip is reduced to one when testing in trip. Although there may be 
as light increase in the possibility that the failure of a channel 
could prevent the actuation of a function (because testing in bypass 
could result in two-out-of-two logic while testing in trip would 
have resulted in one-out-of-two logic), testing in bypass will 
reduce the vulnerability to inadvertent actuation of a function 
while maintaining the required number of channels to trip. The 
impact of using bypass test capability upon nuclear safety has been 
previously evaluated by the NRC and determined to be acceptable in 
WCAPs 14333-P-A, Revision 1, 15376-P-A, Revision 1, and 10271-P-A, 
Revision 1. Thus, testing in bypass when all channels are operable 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Under the proposed change, the channel being tested may be 
bypassed when another channel is concurrently inoperable and in a 
tripped condition. As a result, with one channel in bypass and 
another in trip leaves one-out-of-two operable channels to initiate 
the protective function (if the initial logic is two-out-of-four) or 
one-out-of-one operable channels to initiate the protective function 
(if the initial logic was two-out-of-three). Thus, testing in bypass 
with one channel inoperable does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Implementation of the bypass testing capability does not affect 
the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for 
mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of an 
accident. Plant response as modeled in the safety analyses is 
unaffected. Hence, the releases used as input to the dose 
calculations are unchanged from those previously assumed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Surveillance testing in bypass does not affect accident 
initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety 
analyses. No new operating configuration is being imposed by the 
surveillance testing in bypass that would create a new failure 
scenario. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints 
after the proposed change is implemented. In addition, no new 
failure modes are being created for any plant equipment. The bypass 
test instrumentation has been designed to applicable regulatory and 
industry standards. Fault conditions, failure detection, reliability 
and equipment qualification have been considered. The changes do not 
result in the creation of any change to existing accident scenarios 
nor does it create any new or different accident scenarios. The 
types of accidents defined in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report] UFSAR continue to represent the credible spectrum of events 
to be analyzed which determine safe plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    No safety analyses were changed or modified as a result of the 
proposed TS change to reflect installed bypass test capability. The 
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. Margins associated with the current safety 
analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety 
analyses remain bounding since their conclusions are not affected by 
performing surveillance testing in bypass. The safety systems 
credited in the safety analyses will continue to be available to 
perform their mitigation functions.
    Implementation of testing in bypass results in an overall 
improvement in safety because the capability to test in bypass for 
the analog channels will promote improved maintenance practices that 
will provide a resultant reduction in the number of spurious reactor 
trips and spurious actuation of safety equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, VP & Deputy General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 18, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
change would revise Technical Specifications for the Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System

[[Page 50764]]

Instrumentation to allow the surveillance frequency for the 
Westinghouse-type AR relays that are used as Solid State Protection 
System (SSPS) slave relays or auxiliary relays to be expanded from 
quarterly to every 18 months or refueling. Westinghouse Electric 
Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Topical Report WCAP-13877-P-A Revision 2, 
dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of Westinghouse Type AR 
Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays,'' provides the details and results 
that support the increased surveillance interval.
    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 change to the Technical Specifications does not result in a 
condition where the design, material, and construction standards 
that are applicable to slave relays has been changed or degraded. 
The change is to increase the allowable surveillance to a less 
impacting 18 month interval. The standard for Westinghouse Plants 
specifically required quarterly testing of slave relays in the Solid 
State Protection System (SSPS) instrumentation that initiates proper 
unit shutdown or engineered safety feature. The Solid State 
Protective System (SSPS) actuates the Engineered Safety Features 
Actuation Systems (ESFAS). Current surveillance requirements involve 
testing the relays at power, with the attendant risk of inadvertent 
actuation of the engineered safety features. In addition, the on-
line testing of slave relays required plant manipulation, abnormal 
configurations, and removed from service various equipment making it 
unavailable to perform its intended safety function. Generic Letter 
93-05, ``Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce 
Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation'' 
identified that relay testing could be performed on a ``staggered 
test basis over a cycle and leave the tests carrying highest risk to 
a refueling outage or other cold shutdown.''
    The SSPS can initiate safeguard functions to maintain the 
reactor plant in a safe shutdown condition. Safeguard actuation 
occurs when a train of logic senses the need for any of the 
particular safeguards actions. Safeguard actuation is determined by 
the SSPS in the same way as the need for a reactor trip. When the 
required logic is present, one or more master relays are energized. 
Each master relay typically has several slave relays energized by 
the master relay. The slave relays operate the contacts necessary to 
open and close valves, shift control room air ventilation line ups, 
start diesel generators, etc. Each safeguards train actuates a 
physically and electrically separate train of pumps and valves, with 
a dedicated diesel generator for electrical power. Failure of one 
component of a train (or the entire train) does not prevent 
sufficient action by the other train. The SSPS actuated functions 
are: Safety Injection (causes a reactor trip, various pumps and 
coolers to start, and various valves to open and close), Containment 
Isolation (closes valves to isolate the Reactor Building interior 
from the environment), Steam isolation (close all three main steam 
isolation valves), and Reactor Building Spray (each train provides 
flow).
    Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report 
WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of 
Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the 
details and results that support the increased surveillance 
interval. The same ESFAS instrumentation is being used and the same 
ESFAS system reliability is expected. The proposed change will not 
modify any system interface or function; therefore, will not 
increase the likelihood of an accident. The proposed activity will 
not change, degrade or prevent the performance of any accident 
mitigation systems or alter any assumptions previously made in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident described in 
the FSAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in any 
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.
    Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Increasing 
the surveillance interval does not alter the performance of the 
ESFAS mitigation systems assumed in the plant safety analysis nor 
will it create any new accident initiators or scenarios. 
Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report 
WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August 2000, ``Reliability Assessment of 
Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the 
details and results that support the increased surveillance 
interval. Current surveillance requirements involve testing the 
relays at power, with the attendant risk of inadvertent actuation of 
the engineered safety features. In addition, the on-line testing of 
slave relays required plant manipulation, abnormal configurations, 
and removed from service various equipment making it unavailable to 
perform its intended safety function. Generic Letter 93-05, ``Line-
Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance 
Requirements for Testing During Power Operation'' identified that 
relay testing could be performed on a ``staggered test basis over a 
cycle and leave the tests carrying highest risk to a refueling 
outage or other cold shutdown.'' Each safeguards train actuates a 
physically and electrically separate train of pumps and valves with 
a dedicated diesel generator for electrical power. Failure of one 
component of a train (or the entire train) does not prevent 
sufficient action by the other train. The SSPS actuated functions 
are: Safety Injection (causes a reactor trip, various pumps and 
coolers to start, and various valves to open and close), Containment 
Isolation (closes valves to isolate the Reactor Building interior 
from the environment), Steam isolation (close all three main steam 
isolation valves), and Reactor Building spray (Each train provides 
flow). The current SSPS functions are a potential challenge to the 
plant when tested at power, in that isolation or activation of major 
components place the unit in an unfavorable conditions that are 
corrected by initiating Abnormal Operating Procedures. The change 
will increase the allowable surveillance to a less impacting 18 
month interval therefore allowing testing to be completed during a 
time period where activation would have less of an effect on 
operation. Implementation of the proposed amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously 
evaluated within the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The change to the Technical Specifications increasing the 
surveillance interval does not result or involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 
(Westinghouse) topical report WCAP-13877-P-A Rev 2, dated August 
2000, ``Reliability Assessment of Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used 
as SSPS Slave Relays'' provides the details and results that support 
the increased surveillance interval. The periodic slave relay 
functional verification should be relaxed because of the 
demonstrated high reliability of the relay and its insensitivity to 
any short term wear or aging effects. The current SSPS functions are 
a potential challenge to the plant when surveillance tested at 
power, in that isolation or activation of major components places 
the unit in an unfavorable condition that is corrected by initiating 
Abnormal Operating Procedures. The change will increase the 
allowable surveillance to a less impacting 18 month interval 
therefore allowing testing to be completed during a time period 
where activation would have less of an effect on operation. 
Implementation of the proposed amendment does not result in a 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

[[Page 50765]]

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN 
50-454, STN 50-455, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, 
Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request 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 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); and
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available 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 
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.


[[Page 50766]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 2011.

    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).
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. 2011-19984 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P