Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 66486-66492 [2012-26762]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66486
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
consequences from a radiological
accident. Furthermore, the requirement
from which the licensee will be
exempted involves scheduling
requirements. Accordingly, the
exemption meets the eligibility criteria
for categorical exclusion, set forth in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR
51.22(b), no environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment
is required to be prepared in connection
with the issuance of the exemption.
5.0
Conclusion
The Commission has determined that
granting these exemptions is consistent
with 10 CFR 26.207(d), ‘‘Plant
Emergencies,’’ which allows the
licensee to not meet the requirements of
10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during
declared emergencies, as defined in the
licensee’s emergency plan. The 10 CFR
Part 26 Statement of Consideration (73
FR 17148; March 31, 2008) states that,
‘‘Plant emergencies are extraordinary
circumstances that may be most
effectively addressed through staff
augmentation that can only be
practically achieved through the use of
work hours in excess of the limits of
§ 26.205(c) and (d).’’
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
26.9, the exemption is authorized by
law, will not endanger life or property
or the common defense and security,
and is otherwise in the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby
grants the licensee an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c)
and (d) for Salem and HCGS.
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
[NRC–2012–0259]
Applications and Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request,
opportunity to comment, and
opportunity to request a hearing, order.
AGENCY:
Comments must be filed by
December 5, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 4,
2013. Any potential party as defined in
section 2.4 of Title of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to Sensitive Unclassified
Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) is
necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by November
15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and are publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2012–0259. You
may submit comments by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0259. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
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.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0259.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
[FR Doc. 2012–26934 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–
0259 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://www.regulations.
gov as well as entering the comment
submissions into ADAMS. The NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove identifying or
contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–
0259 when contacting the NRC about
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of October 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC
staff) is publishing this notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice
of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission
the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of
amendments containing SUNSI.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 or
combined 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’s 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66487
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 the 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’s E-Filing rule
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66488
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
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’s public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the 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’s Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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://
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.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the following three factors
in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The
information upon which the filing is
based was not previously available; (ii)
the information upon which the filing is
based is materially different from
information previously available; and
(iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability
of the subsequent information.
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/
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
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’s
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–374, LaSalle County
Station (LSCS), Unit 2, LaSalle County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: October
11, 2012. A publicly available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML12285A387.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise Technical
Specifications (TS) Section 2.1.1,
‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],’’ to
reflect an increase of: 1) The tworecirculation loop minimum critical
power ratio (MCPR) SL from ≥ 1.11 to
≥ 1.14 and, 2) an increase in the single
recirculation loop MCPR SL from ≥ 1.12
to ≥ 1.17. The change is required to
support the LSCS, Unit 2, Cycle 15,
operation. Cycle 15 will be the first
cycle of operation with a mixed core
containing the following fuel types:
Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) 2 fuel, and
Areva ATRIUM–10 fuel.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination: In
support of the no significant hazards
consideration determination, an
evaluation of each of the criteria set
forth in 10 CFR 50.92, ‘‘Issuance of
Amendment’’ is provided below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The [MCPR SL] is defined in the TS Bases
Section B 2.1.1 as that limit ‘‘that, in the
event of an AOO [Anticipated Operational
Occurrence] from the limiting condition of
operation, at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in
the core would be expected to avoid boiling
transition.’’ The MCPR SL satisfies the
requirements of General Design Criterion 10
of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding
acceptable fuel design limits. The MCPR SL
is reevaluated for each reload using NRCapproved methodologies. The analyses for
LSCS, Unit 2, Cycle 15 have concluded that
a two-loop MCPR SL of ≥ 1.14, based on the
application of [GNF’s] NRC-approved MCPR
SL methodology, will ensure that this
acceptance criterion is met. For single-loop
operation, a MCPR SL of ≥ 1.17 also ensures
that this acceptance criterion is met. The
MCPR operating limits are presented and
controlled in accordance with the LSCS, Unit
2, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve
any plant modifications or operational
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the
probability of operator error. The requested
changes do not affect any postulated accident
precursors, do not affect any accident
mitigating systems, and do not introduce any
new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the changes to the [MCPR SL]
do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The GNF2 fuel to be used in Cycle 15 is
of a design compatible with the co-resident
Areva ATRIUM–10 fuel. Therefore, the
introduction of GNF2 fuel into the Cycle 15
core will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident. The proposed
change does not involve any new modes of
operation, any changes to setpoints, or any
plant modifications. The proposed revised
MCPR SLs have accounted for the mixed fuel
core and have been shown to be acceptable
for Cycle 15 operation. Compliance with the
criterion for incipient boiling transition
continues to be ensured. The core operating
limits will continue to be developed using
NRC approved methods which also account
for the mixed fuel core design. The proposed
MCPR SLs or methods for establishing the
core operating limits do not result in the
creation of any new precursors to an
accident.
Therefore, this 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 MCPR SLs have been evaluated in
accordance with GNF’s NRC-approved cyclespecific limit methodology to ensure that
during normal operation and during AOO’s
at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are
not expected to experience transition boiling.
The proposed revised MCPR SLs have
accounted for the mixed fuel core and have
been shown to be acceptable for Cycle 15
operation. Compliance with the criterion for
incipient boiling transition continues to be
ensured. On this basis, the implementation of
the change to the MCPR SLs does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Tamra
Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I.
Dudek.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66489
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,
Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: May 30,
2012, as supplemented by letter dated
October 3, 2012. Public versions of the
May 30 and October 3, 2012, letters are
available in ADAMS under Accession
Nos. ML121570406 and ML12285A356,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). This amendment
request was originally noticed on
August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47127); however,
it is being re-noticed because the
original notice did not provide
information about accessing SUNSI
information or include the Order
Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information for Contention Preparation.
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification Section 2.0,
‘‘Safety Limits.’’ Specifically, the
proposed amendment would revise two
recirculation loop and single
recirculation loop Safety Limit
Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) values to reflect results of a
cycle-specific calculation.
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.
Four accidents have been evaluated
previously as reflected in the CNS [Cooper
Nuclear Station] Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR). These four accidents are (1)
loss-of-coolant, (2) control rod drop, (3) main
steam line break, and (4) fuel handling. The
probability of an evaluated accident is
derived from the probabilities of the
individual precursors to that accident.
Changing the SLMCPR values does not
increase the probability of an evaluated
accident. The change does not require any
physical modifications to the plant or any
components, nor does it require a change in
plant operation. Therefore, no individual
precursors of an accident are affected.
The consequences of an evaluated accident
are determined by the operability of plant
systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. This proposed change makes
no modification to the design or operation of
the systems that are used in mitigation of
accidents. Limits have been established,
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) approved methods, to
ensure that fuel performance during normal,
transient, and accident conditions is
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
66490
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
acceptable. The proposed change to the
values of the SLMCPR continues to
conservatively establish this safety limit such
that the fuel is protected during normal
operation and during any plant transients or
anticipated operational occurrences.
Based on the above, NPPD [Nebraska
Public Power District] concludes that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes 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 from an accident
previously evaluated would require creation
of precursors of that accident. New accident
precursors may be created by modification of
the plant configuration or changes in how the
plant is operated. The proposed change does
not involve a modification of the plant
configuration or in how the plant is operated.
The proposed change to the SLMCPR values
assures that safety criteria are maintained.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that
the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The values of the proposed SLMCPR
provides a margin of safety by ensuring that
no more than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected
to be in boiling transition if the Minimum
Critical Power Ratio limit is not violated. The
proposed change will ensure the appropriate
level of fuel protection is maintained.
Additionally, operational limits are
established based on the proposed SLMCPR
to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated
during all modes of operation. This will
ensure that the fuel design safety criteria are
met (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods
do not experience transition boiling during
normal operation as well as anticipated
operational occurrences).
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that
the proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C.
McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus,
NE 68602–0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–260 and 50–296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 2 and 3,
Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: July 30,
2012. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML12215A005.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would delete the BFN,
Units 2 and 3, Technical Specification
(TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.12,
which requires the verification of the
capability to automatically transfer the
power supply from the normal source to
the alternate source for each LowPressure Coolant Injection (LPCI)
subsystem inboard injection valve and
each recirculation pump discharge valve
on a 24-month frequency. In addition,
the licensee is requesting approval for
the use of a modified loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) methodology that will
require revising TS 5.6.5.b to include a
reference to the modified LOCA
methodology. Also, the request revises
TSs 3.3.1.1, 5.6.5.a, and 5.6.5.b to
include the modified LOCA
methodology for the oscilliation power
range monitor upscale function period
based detection algorithm setpoint
limits.
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 Technical
Specification change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The 480V RMOV [Reactor MotorOperational Value] Boards D or E, the
equipment they power, or the automatic
power transfer feature provided for these
boards are not precursors to any accident
previously evaluated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore,
the probability of an evaluated accident is
not increased by modifying this equipment.
The proposed deletion of a surveillance
requirement to verify automatic transfer
capability for the power supply to the LPCI
inboard injection valves, RHR [residual heat
removal] minimum flow valves and
recirculation pump discharge valves does not
change the number of Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems credited
in the BFN licensing basis. The proposed
change does not affect the operational
characteristics or function of systems,
structures, or components (SSCs), the
interfaces between credited SSCs and other
plant systems, or the reliability of SSCs. The
proposed change does not impact the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
capability of credited SSCs to perform their
required safety functions.
The proposed change to the ECCS
Evaluation Model meets the requirements of
10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(ii) and ensures the limits
of 10 CFR 50.46(b) are maintained. The
proposed changes to TS 5.6.5a, 5.6.5b and
3.3.1.1 are required to implement AREVA
Analytical Methodologies.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes will
not significantly increase the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed Technical
Specification change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed deletion of a surveillance
requirement to verify automatic transfer
capability for the power supply to the LPCI
inboard injection valves, RHR minimum flow
valves and recirculation pump discharge
valves does not introduce new equipment,
which could create a new or different kind
of accident.
The proposed change to the ECCS
Evaluation Model meets the requirements of
10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(ii) and ensures the limits
of 10 CFR 50.46(b) are maintained. The
proposed changes to TS 5.6.5.a, 5.6.5.b and
3.3.1.1 are required to implement AREVA
Analytical Methodologies.
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which equipment operation is
initiated, nor will the functional demands on
credited equipment be changed. The
capability of credited SSCs to perform their
required function will not be affected by the
proposed change. In addition, the proposed
change does not affect the interaction of plant
SSCs with other plant SSCs whose failure or
malfunction can initiate an accident or
transient. As such, no new failure modes are
being introduced. No new external threats,
release pathways, or equipment failure
modes are created. Therefore, the proposed
deletion of a surveillance requirement to
verify automatic transfer capability for the
power supply to the LPCI inboard injection
valves, RHR minimum flow valves and
recirculation pump discharge valves will not
create a possibility for an accident of a new
or different type than those previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed Technical
Specification change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the ECCS
Evaluation Model and the deletion of a
surveillance requirement to verify automatic
transfer capability for the power supply to
the LPCI inboard injection valves, RHR
minimum flow valves and recirculation
pump discharge valves does not change the
conditions, operating configurations, or
minimum amount of operating equipment
credited in the safety analyses for accident or
transient mitigation.
The proposed change does not alter the
assumptions contained in the safety analyses.
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined.
The proposed change does not impact the
safety analysis-credited redundancy or
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
availability of SSCs required for accident or
transient mitigation, or the ability of the
plant to cope with design basis events as
assumed in safety analyses. In addition, no
changes are proposed in the manner in which
the credited SSCs provide plant protection or
which create new modes of plant operation.
The requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K continue to be met. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes to TS 5.6.5a, 5.6.5b,
and 3.3.1.1 are required to implement
AREVA Analytical Methodologies.
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: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F.
Quichocho.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–374, LaSalle County
Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,
Nemaha County, Nebraska
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–260 and 50–296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
66491
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 email address for
the Office of the Secretary and the
Office of the General Counsel are
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and
OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1
The request must include the following
information:
(1) A description of the licensing
action with a citation to this Federal
Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the
potential party and a description of the
potential party’s particularized interest
that could be harmed by the action
identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and
the 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 after a
determination on standing and need for
access, 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
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.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
Continued
05NON1
66492
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
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 25th day
of October 2012.
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).
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.
10 .......................
60 .......................
20 .......................
25 .......................
30 .......................
40 .......................
A ........................
A + 3 ..................
A + 28 ................
A + 53 ................
A + 60 ................
>A + 60 ..............
Notice is hereby given that the
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) has
issued a Director’s Decision with regard
to a petition filed by Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, State
of New York. The petition, dated March
28, 2011, was supplemented by a
transcript of a public meeting held on
May 9, 2011, between representatives of
the petitioner and the NRC. The petition
concerns the operation of the Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and
3 (Indian Point), owned by Entergy
Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (Units 1
and 2) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point
3, LLC (Unit 3) and operated by Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the
licensee).
The petitioner asked the NRC to take
immediate action and issue an Order
requiring the following actions
regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, that would
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos.: 50–003, 50–247, 50–286;
NRC–2012–0265: License Nos.: DPR–5,
DPR–26, and DPR–64]
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(1) identify the violations of paragraphs
F and G of Section III of Appendix R,
‘‘Fire Protection Program for Nuclear
Power Facilities Operating Prior to
January 1, 1979,’’ to part 50 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ‘‘Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,’’
which exist as of the date of the petition
(March 28, 2011), at Indian Point Units
1, 2, and 3, (2) compel Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Entergy, or the
licensee), and its affiliates to comply on
or before September 20, 2011, with the
requirements in paragraphs F and G for
all fire zones in Indian Point Units 2
and 3, and any Indian Point Unit 1 fire
zone or system, structure, or component
that Indian Point Units 2 and 3, rely
upon, and (3) convene an evidentiary
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
[FR Doc. 2012–26762 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC,
and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3,
LLC; Issuance of Director’s Decision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66486-66492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26762]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0259]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request, opportunity to comment, and
opportunity to request a hearing, order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 5, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 4, 2013. Any potential party as
defined in section 2.4 of Title of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request
document access by November 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0259. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0259. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 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.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0259 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0259.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0259 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended
[[Page 66487]]
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or
NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission
publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and
grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately
effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any
person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period 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.
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 or
combined 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's 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 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 the 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's E-Filing rule
[[Page 66488]]
(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 email 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's
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's 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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
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's Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email 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 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://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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from information
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
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/
[[Page 66489]]
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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County
Station (LSCS), Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12285A387.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 2.1.1,
``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to reflect an increase of: 1) The
two-recirculation loop minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) SL from >=
1.11 to >= 1.14 and, 2) an increase in the single recirculation loop
MCPR SL from >= 1.12 to >= 1.17. The change is required to support the
LSCS, Unit 2, Cycle 15, operation. Cycle 15 will be the first cycle of
operation with a mixed core containing the following fuel types: Global
Nuclear Fuel (GNF) 2 fuel, and Areva ATRIUM-10 fuel.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: In support of the no significant hazards consideration
determination, an evaluation of each of the criteria set forth in 10
CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of Amendment'' is provided below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The [MCPR SL] is defined in the TS Bases Section B 2.1.1 as that
limit ``that, in the event of an AOO [Anticipated Operational
Occurrence] from the limiting condition of operation, at least 99.9%
of the fuel rods in the core would be expected to avoid boiling
transition.'' The MCPR SL satisfies the requirements of General
Design Criterion 10 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding
acceptable fuel design limits. The MCPR SL is reevaluated for each
reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The analyses for LSCS, Unit
2, Cycle 15 have concluded that a two-loop MCPR SL of >= 1.14, based
on the application of [GNF's] NRC-approved MCPR SL methodology, will
ensure that this acceptance criterion is met. For single-loop
operation, a MCPR SL of >= 1.17 also ensures that this acceptance
criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are presented and
controlled in accordance with the LSCS, Unit 2, Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any plant modifications
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error.
The requested changes do not affect any postulated accident
precursors, do not affect any accident mitigating systems, and do
not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the changes to the [MCPR SL] do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The GNF2 fuel to be used in Cycle 15 is of a design compatible
with the co-resident Areva ATRIUM-10 fuel. Therefore, the
introduction of GNF2 fuel into the Cycle 15 core will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed
change does not involve any new modes of operation, any changes to
setpoints, or any plant modifications. The proposed revised MCPR SLs
have accounted for the mixed fuel core and have been shown to be
acceptable for Cycle 15 operation. Compliance with the criterion for
incipient boiling transition continues to be ensured. The core
operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC approved
methods which also account for the mixed fuel core design. The
proposed MCPR SLs or methods for establishing the core operating
limits do not result in the creation of any new precursors to an
accident.
Therefore, this 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 MCPR SLs have been evaluated in accordance with GNF's NRC-
approved cycle-specific limit methodology to ensure that during
normal operation and during AOO's at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in
the core are not expected to experience transition boiling. The
proposed revised MCPR SLs have accounted for the mixed fuel core and
have been shown to be acceptable for Cycle 15 operation. Compliance
with the criterion for incipient boiling transition continues to be
ensured. On this basis, the implementation of the change to the MCPR
SLs does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Tamra Domeyer, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: May 30, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated October 3, 2012. Public versions of the May 30 and October 3,
2012, letters are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML121570406
and ML12285A356, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). This
amendment request was originally noticed on August 7, 2012 (77 FR
47127); however, it is being re-noticed because the original notice did
not provide information about accessing SUNSI information or include
the Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation. The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 2.0, ``Safety
Limits.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment would revise two
recirculation loop and single recirculation loop Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values to reflect results of a cycle-
specific calculation.
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.
Four accidents have been evaluated previously as reflected in
the CNS [Cooper Nuclear Station] Updated Safety Analysis Report
(USAR). These four accidents are (1) loss-of-coolant, (2) control
rod drop, (3) main steam line break, and (4) fuel handling. The
probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident.
Changing the SLMCPR values does not increase the probability of an
evaluated accident. The change does not require any physical
modifications to the plant or any components, nor does it require a
change in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of an
accident are affected.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. This proposed change makes no modification to the
design or operation of the systems that are used in mitigation of
accidents. Limits have been established, consistent with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved methods, to ensure that fuel
performance during normal, transient, and accident conditions is
[[Page 66490]]
acceptable. The proposed change to the values of the SLMCPR
continues to conservatively establish this safety limit such that
the fuel is protected during normal operation and during any plant
transients or anticipated operational occurrences.
Based on the above, NPPD [Nebraska Public Power District]
concludes that the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes 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 from an accident previously evaluated would require
creation of precursors of that accident. New accident precursors may
be created by modification of the plant configuration or changes in
how the plant is operated. The proposed change does not involve a
modification of the plant configuration or in how the plant is
operated. The proposed change to the SLMCPR values assures that
safety criteria are maintained.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The values of the proposed SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by
ensuring that no more than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected to be in
boiling transition if the Minimum Critical Power Ratio limit is not
violated. The proposed change will ensure the appropriate level of
fuel protection is maintained. Additionally, operational limits are
established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR
is not violated during all modes of operation. This will ensure that
the fuel design safety criteria are met (i.e., that at least 99.9%
of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal
operation as well as anticipated operational occurrences).
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12215A005.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would delete the BFN, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specification
(TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.12, which requires the verification
of the capability to automatically transfer the power supply from the
normal source to the alternate source for each Low-Pressure Coolant
Injection (LPCI) subsystem inboard injection valve and each
recirculation pump discharge valve on a 24-month frequency. In
addition, the licensee is requesting approval for the use of a modified
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) methodology that will require revising
TS 5.6.5.b to include a reference to the modified LOCA methodology.
Also, the request revises TSs 3.3.1.1, 5.6.5.a, and 5.6.5.b to include
the modified LOCA methodology for the oscilliation power range monitor
upscale function period based detection algorithm setpoint limits.
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 Technical Specification change involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The 480V RMOV [Reactor Motor-Operational Value] Boards D or E,
the equipment they power, or the automatic power transfer feature
provided for these boards are not precursors to any accident
previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Therefore, the probability of an evaluated accident is not
increased by modifying this equipment.
The proposed deletion of a surveillance requirement to verify
automatic transfer capability for the power supply to the LPCI
inboard injection valves, RHR [residual heat removal] minimum flow
valves and recirculation pump discharge valves does not change the
number of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems credited
in the BFN licensing basis. The proposed change does not affect the
operational characteristics or function of systems, structures, or
components (SSCs), the interfaces between credited SSCs and other
plant systems, or the reliability of SSCs. The proposed change does
not impact the capability of credited SSCs to perform their required
safety functions.
The proposed change to the ECCS Evaluation Model meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(ii) and ensures the limits of 10
CFR 50.46(b) are maintained. The proposed changes to TS 5.6.5a,
5.6.5b and 3.3.1.1 are required to implement AREVA Analytical
Methodologies.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes will not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed deletion of a surveillance requirement to verify
automatic transfer capability for the power supply to the LPCI
inboard injection valves, RHR minimum flow valves and recirculation
pump discharge valves does not introduce new equipment, which could
create a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed change to the ECCS Evaluation Model meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(ii) and ensures the limits of 10
CFR 50.46(b) are maintained. The proposed changes to TS 5.6.5.a,
5.6.5.b and 3.3.1.1 are required to implement AREVA Analytical
Methodologies.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited
equipment be changed. The capability of credited SSCs to perform
their required function will not be affected by the proposed change.
In addition, the proposed change does not affect the interaction of
plant SSCs with other plant SSCs whose failure or malfunction can
initiate an accident or transient. As such, no new failure modes are
being introduced. No new external threats, release pathways, or
equipment failure modes are created. Therefore, the proposed
deletion of a surveillance requirement to verify automatic transfer
capability for the power supply to the LPCI inboard injection
valves, RHR minimum flow valves and recirculation pump discharge
valves will not create a possibility for an accident of a new or
different type than those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the ECCS Evaluation Model and the
deletion of a surveillance requirement to verify automatic transfer
capability for the power supply to the LPCI inboard injection
valves, RHR minimum flow valves and recirculation pump discharge
valves does not change the conditions, operating configurations, or
minimum amount of operating equipment credited in the safety
analyses for accident or transient mitigation.
The proposed change does not alter the assumptions contained in
the safety analyses. The proposed change does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined.
The proposed change does not impact the safety analysis-credited
redundancy or
[[Page 66491]]
availability of SSCs required for accident or transient mitigation,
or the ability of the plant to cope with design basis events as
assumed in safety analyses. In addition, no changes are proposed in
the manner in which the credited SSCs provide plant protection or
which create new modes of plant operation. The requirements of 10
CFR 50.46 and Appendix K continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The proposed changes to TS 5.6.5a, 5.6.5b, and 3.3.1.1 are
required to implement AREVA Analytical Methodologies.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County
Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
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 email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov,
respectively.\1\ 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
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
after a determination on standing and need for access, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66492]]
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 25th day of October 2012.
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. 2012-26762 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
