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, 21164-21171 [2013-07957]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21164
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
Dated: April 3, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013–08153 Filed 4–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY:
National Science Foundation.
Notice; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 78 FR 6141, and no
comments were received. NSF is
forwarding the proposed renewal
submission to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of
this second notice. The full submission
may be found at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments regarding (a) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW.
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by
email to splimpton@nsf.gov. Comments
regarding these information collections
are best assured of having their full
effect if received within 30 days of this
notification. Copies of the submission(s)
may be obtained by calling 703–292–
7556.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Under OMB regulations, the agency
may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this
submission is pending at OMB.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 295,
Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to
splimpton@nsf.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Call
or write, Suzanne Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by
email to splimpton@nsf.gov. Individuals
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Antarctic
emergency response plan and
environmental protection information.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0180
Abstract: The NSF, pursuant to the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (16
U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) (‘‘ACA’’) regulates
certain non-governmental activities in
Antarctica. The ACA was amended in
1996 by the Antarctic Science, Tourism,
and Conservation Act. On September 7,
2001, NSF published a final rule in the
Federal Register (66 FR 46739)
implementing certain of these statutory
amendments. The rule requires nongovernmental Antarctic expeditions
using non-U.S. flagged vessels to ensure
that the vessel owner has an emergency
response plan. The rule also requires
persons organizing a non-governmental
expedition to provide expedition
members with information on their
environmental protection obligations
under the Antarctic Conservation Act.
Expected Respondents. Respondents
may include non-profit organizations
and small and large businesses. The
majority of respondents are anticipated
to be U.S. tour operators, currently
estimated to number twelve.
Burden on the Public. The Foundation
estimates that a one-time paperwork and
recordkeeping burden of 40 hours or
less, at a cost of $500 to $1400 per
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondent, will result from the
emergency response plan requirement
contained in the rule. Presently, all
respondents have been providing
expedition members with a copy of the
Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic
(prepared and adopted at the Eighteenth
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
as Recommendation XVIII–1). Because
this Antarctic Treaty System document
satisfies the environmental protection
information requirements of the rule, no
additional burden shall result from the
environmental information
requirements in the proposed rule.
Dated: April 3, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013–08161 Filed 4–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0059]
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, opportunity to
request a hearing, and to petition for
leave to intervene, order.
AGENCY:
Comments must be filed by May
9, 2013. A request for a hearing must be
filed by June 10, 2013. Any potential
party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 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 April 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2013–0059. You
may submit comments by the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0059. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
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–2013–
0059 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 any the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0059.
• 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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–
0059 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
that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21165
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
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 ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ 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/doccollections/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.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21166
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
(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://
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
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 to
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
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:
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 the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
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/
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.
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50–341,
Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request:
December 21, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML130040160.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise Fermi 2 Plant Operating
License, Technical Specification (TS)
Section 1.1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section
3.4.10, ‘‘RCS Pressure and Temperature
(P/T) Limits,’’ and Section 5.6,
‘‘Reporting Requirements,’’ by replacing
the existing reactor vessel heatup and
cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit
curves with references to the Pressure
and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR)
at Fermi 2.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. The proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21167
The proposed changes modify the TS by
replacing references to existing reactor vessel
heatup and cooldown rate limits and P/T
limit curves with references to the PTLR. The
proposed amendment also adopts the NRC
approved methodology of the GEH Nuclear
Energy Licensing Topical Report NEDC–
33178P–A, Revision 1, for the preparation of
the Fermi 2 P/T limit curves. In 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix G, requirements are established
to protect the integrity of the Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary in nuclear power plants.
Implementing the NRC-approved
methodology for calculating P/T limit curves
and relocating those curves to the PTLR
provides an equivalent level of assurance that
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity
will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and
do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the plant or
the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The ability of structures,
systems, and components to perform their
intended safety functions is not altered or
prevented by the proposed changes, and the
assumptions used in determining the
radiological consequences of previously
evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The change in methodology for calculating
P/T limits and the relocation of those limits
to the PTLR does not alter or involve any
design basis accident initiators. Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity will
continue to be maintained in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and the
assumed accident performance of plant
structures, systems and components will not
be affected. These changes do not involve
any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed), and installed equipment is not
being operated in a new or different manner.
Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety. The proposed changes do not affect
the function of the Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary or its response during plant
transients. By calculating the P/T limits using
NRC-approved methodology, adequate
margins of safety relating to Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary integrity are maintained.
The proposed changes do not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. There are no
changes to setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated, and the operability
requirements for equipment assumed to
operate for accident mitigation are not
affected.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
21168
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, 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: Bruce R.
Masters, DTE Energy, General Counsel—
Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza,
Detroit, MI 48226–1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of application for amendments:
September 28, 2012, as supplemented
on February 15, 2013. A publicly
available version is available under
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML122860201
and ML13051A032, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would authorize an
increase in the maximum power level
from 3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
3951 MWt. The requested change,
referred to as an extended power uprate
(EPU), represents an increase of
approximately 12.4 percent above the
current licensed thermal power level.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below
with the NRC staff’s edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power level does not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the
maximum authorized core power level for
PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station]
from the current licensed thermal power
(CLTP) of 3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
3951 MWt. Evaluations and analyses of the
nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) and
balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) that could be
affected by the power uprate were performed
in accordance [with] the approaches
described in:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
• NEDC–33004P–A (commonly called
CLTR), Licensing Topical Report Constant
Pressure Power Uprate, Revision 4,
• NEDC–32424P–A (commonly called
ELTR1), Generic Guidelines for General
Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended
Power Uprate, and
• NEDC–32523P–A (commonly called
ELTR2), Generic Evaluations of General
Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended
Power Uprate.
The evaluations concluded that all plant
components, as modified, will continue to be
capable of performing their design function
at the proposed uprated core power level.
The PBAPS licensing and design bases,
including PBAPS accident analyses, were
also evaluated for the effect of the proposed
power increase. The evaluation concluded
that the applicable analysis acceptance
criteria continue to be met.
Power level is not an initiator of any
transient or accident; it is used as an input
assumption to equipment design and
accident analyses. The proposed change does
not affect the release paths or the frequency
of release for any accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report]. Structures, systems,
and components required to mitigate
transients remain capable of performing their
design functions considering radiological
consequences associated with the effect of
the proposed EPU. The source terms used to
evaluate the radiological consequences were
reviewed and were determined to bound
[plant] operation at EPU power levels. The
results of EPU accident evaluations do not
exceed NRC-approved acceptance limits.
The spectrum of postulated accidents and
transients were reviewed and were shown to
meet the regulatory criteria to which PBAPS
is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and
core design, the Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits
(SAFDLs) are still met. Continued
compliance with the SLMPCR and other
SAFDLs is confirmed on a cycle specific
basis consistent with the criteria accepted by
the NRC.
Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure
boundary were evaluated at EPU conditions
(pressure, temperature, flow, and radiation)
and found to meet the acceptance criteria for
allowable stresses. Adequate overpressure
margin is maintained with the addition of
one main steam safety valve.
Challenges to the containment were also
evaluated. Containment and its associated
cooling system continue to meet applicable
regulatory requirements. The calculated post
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)
suppression pool temperature decreases due
to modifications and methodology changes
and remain acceptable.
Radiological releases were evaluated and
found to be within the regulatory limits of 10
CFR 50.67, [‘‘Accident source term.’’]
The modifications and methodology
associated with the elimination of
containment accident pressure credit do not
change the design functions of the systems.
By maintaining these functions they do not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The non-safety related Replacement Steam
Dryer (RSD) must function to maintain
structural integrity and avoid generation of
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The
RSD analyses demonstrate the structural
integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at
EPU conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change increases the
maximum authorized core power level for
PBAPS from the current maximum license
thermal power of 3514 MWt to 3951 MWt.
An evaluation of the equipment that could be
affected by the power uprate has been
performed. No new accident scenarios or
equipment failure modes were identified.
Due to the voluntary elimination of the need
for containment accident pressure credit, the
EPU safety analysis for primary containment
response credits a modification to the
residual heat removal system which involves
a change in a safety-related equipment
lineup. However, this modification and new
line up does not result in a new type of
accident. The full spectrum of accident
considerations was evaluated and no new or
different kinds of accidents were identified.
For PBAPS, the standard evaluation methods
outlined in CLTR, ELTR1, and ELTR2 were
applied to the capability of existing or
modified safety-related plant equipment. No
new accidents or event precursors were
identified.
All [SSCs] previously required for the
mitigation of a transient remain capable of
fulfilling their intended design functions
with the addition of one main steam safety
valve. The addition of the main steam safety
valve does not adversely affect the main
steam system nor create an accident or
malfunction of a different kind. The
proposed increase in power does not
adversely affect safety-related systems or
components and does not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety-related
systems. The change does not adversely
affect any current system interfaces or create
any new interfaces that could result in an
accident or malfunction of a different kind
than was previously evaluated. Operating at
the proposed EPU power level does not
create any new accident initiators or
precursors.
The modifications and methodology
associated with the elimination of
containment accident pressure credit do not
change the design functions of the systems.
The systems are not accident initiators and
by maintaining their current functions they
do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
The new RSD does not have any new
design functions. RSD analyses demonstrate
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
the RSD will be capable of performing the
design function of maintaining structural
integrity. Therefore, there are no new or
different kinds of accidents from those
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed increase in power does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Based on the analyses of the proposed
power increase, the relevant design and
safety acceptance criteria will be met without
a significant reduction in margins of safety.
The analyses supporting EPU have
demonstrated that the PBAPS [SSCs] are
capable of safely performing at EPU
conditions with the addition of one main
steam safety valve. The analyses identified
and defined the major input parameters to
the [NSSS], analyzed NSSS design transients,
and evaluated the capabilities of the primary
containment, NSSS fluid systems, NSSS and
[BOP], NSSS control systems and NSSS and
BOP components, as appropriate.
Radiological consequences of design basis
events remain within regulatory limits and
are not increased significantly. The analyses
confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are
capable of achieving EPU conditions without
significant reduction in margins of safety,
with the modifications discussed in this
application.
Analyses have shown that the integrity of
primary fission product barriers will not be
significantly affected as a result of the power
increase.
Calculated loads on SSCs important to
safety have been shown to remain within
design allowables under EPU conditions for
all design basis event categories, including
with the addition of one main steam safety
valve. Plant response to transients and
accidents do not result in exceeding
acceptance criteria.
As appropriate, the evaluations that
demonstrate acceptability of EPU have been
performed using methods that have either
been reviewed and approved by the NRC
staff, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards
established for maintaining adequate margins
of safety. These evaluations demonstrate that
there are no significant reductions in the
margins of safety.
Maximum power level is one of the
inherent inputs that determine the safe
operating range defined by the accident
analyses. The Technical Specifications
ensure that PBAPS is operated within the
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used
in the accident analyses. The acceptance
criteria for the accident analyses are
conservative with respect to the operating
conditions defined by the Technical
Specifications. The engineering reviews
performed for the constant pressure [EPU]
confirm that the accident analyses criteria are
met at the revised maximum allowable
thermal power level of 3951 MWt. Therefore,
the adequacy of the revised Facility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Operating License and Technical
Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe
operating range is also confirmed, and the
increase in maximum allowable power level
does not involve a significant decrease in a
margin of safety.
The modifications and methodology
associated with the elimination of
[containment accident pressure] credit do not
change the design functions within the
applicable limits. The systems are associated
with accident or event response and do not
significantly affect accident initiators by
maintaining their current functions and they
do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident. The proposed
Technical Specifications associated with
these modifications ensure that PBAPS is
operated within the bounds of the inputs and
assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The steam dryer is being replaced in order
to ensure adequate margin to the established
structural requirements is maintained. The
new RSD does not have any new design
functions and an analysis was performed to
confirm it will be capable of maintaining its
structural integrity. The power ascension test
plan will verify that the RSD conservatively
meets the vibration and stress requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, and with the changes noted
above in square brackets, it appears that
the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley
Fewell, Assistant General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200
Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50–341,
Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties
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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21169
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 of this notice 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) 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)
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.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
21170
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
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
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes
the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under
these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of April 2013.
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).
The U.S. 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 the 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 the 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.
10 ......................................
60 ......................................
20 ......................................
25 ......................................
30 ......................................
40 ......................................
A .......................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A + 3 .................................
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices
21171
Day
Event/Activity
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.
(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.
A + 53 ...............................
A + 60 ...............................
>A + 60 .............................
[FR Doc. 2013–07957 Filed 4–8–13; 8:45 am]
Week of May 13, 2013—Tentative
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of May 13, 2013.
*
*
*
*
*
* The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings,
call (recording)—301–415–1292.
Contact person for more information:
Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or
by email at kimberly.meyerchambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
This notice is distributed
electronically to subscribers. If you no
longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please
contact the Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969),
or send an email to
darlene.wright@nrc.gov.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meetings
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission [NRC–2013–
0001]
Weeks of April 8, 15, 22, 29, May
6, 13, 2013.
DATE:
Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
PLACE:
STATUS:
Public and Closed.
Week of April 8, 2013
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of April 8, 2013.
Week of April 15, 2013—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of April 15, 2013.
Week of April 22, 2013—Tentative
Monday, April 22, 2013
9:00 a.m. Meeting with the
Department of Energy Office of Nuclear
Energy (Public Meeting) (Contact: Brett
Rini, 301–251–7615)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—www.nrc.gov.
2:30 p.m. Discussion of Management
and Personnel Issues (Closed—Ex. 2 and
6)
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9:00 a.m. Briefing on the Status of
Lessons Learned from the Fukushima
Dai’ichi Accident (Public Meeting)
(Contact: William D. Reckley, 301–415–
7490)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—www.nrc.gov.
Dated: April 4, 2013.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–08362 Filed 4–5–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of April 29, 2013—Tentative
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of April 29, 2013.
[Docket No. CP2013–57; Order No. 1690]
Week of May 6, 2013—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of May 6, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
International Mail Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing concerning
an additional International Reply
Service Competitive Contract 3
Negotiated Service Agreement. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: April 10,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at 202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Contents of Filing
III. Notice of Proceeding
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
On April 2, 2013, the Postal Service
filed a notice pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5
announcing that it has entered into an
additional International Business Reply
Service (IBRS) Competitive Contract 3
negotiated service agreement
(Agreement).1 It seeks to have the
Agreement included within the existing
IBRS Competitive Contract 3 product on
grounds of functional equivalence to the
baseline agreement filed in Docket No.
CP2011–59.2 Notice at 4–6.
II. Contents of Filing
Agreement. The Postal Service states
that the Agreement is the successor to
the agreement included in the IBRS
Competitive Contract 3 product in
Docket No. CP2012–18. Id. at 3.
1 Notice of United States Postal Service Filing of
a Functionally Equivalent International Business
Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Negotiated
Service Agreement, April 2, 2013 (Notice).
2 See Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011–59,
Order No. 684, Order Approving International
Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3
Negotiated Service Agreement, February 28, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21164-21171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0059]
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, opportunity
to request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene, order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 9, 2013. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 10, 2013. Any potential party as defined in Sec.
2.4 of Title 10 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 April 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-0059.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
[[Page 21165]]
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-2013-0059 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 any the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059.
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-2013-0059 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 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 enter 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 (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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 ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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.
[[Page 21166]]
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 (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 to
[[Page 21167]]
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 the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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/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.
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML130040160.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Fermi 2 Plant Operating License, Technical
Specification (TS) Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' Section 3.4.10, ``RCS
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and Section 5.6, ``Reporting
Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel heatup and
cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with references to the
Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) at Fermi 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes modify the TS by replacing references to
existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and P/T
limit curves with references to the PTLR. The proposed amendment
also adopts the NRC approved methodology of the GEH Nuclear Energy
Licensing Topical Report NEDC-33178P-A, Revision 1, for the
preparation of the Fermi 2 P/T limit curves. In 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G, requirements are established to protect the integrity of
the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary in nuclear power plants.
Implementing the NRC-approved methodology for calculating P/T limit
curves and relocating those curves to the PTLR provides an
equivalent level of assurance that Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary
integrity will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The change in methodology for calculating P/T limits and the
relocation of those limits to the PTLR does not alter or involve any
design basis accident initiators. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary
integrity will continue to be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix G, and the assumed accident performance of plant
structures, systems and components will not be affected. These
changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety. The proposed changes do not affect the
function of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary or its response
during plant transients. By calculating the P/T limits using NRC-
approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity are maintained. The proposed
changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated, and the operability requirements for
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not
affected.
[[Page 21168]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, 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: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: September 28, 2012, as
supplemented on February 15, 2013. A publicly available version is
available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML122860201 and ML13051A032,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would authorize an increase in the maximum power level from
3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3951 MWt. The requested change,
referred to as an extended power uprate (EPU), represents an increase
of approximately 12.4 percent above the current licensed thermal power
level.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power level does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the maximum authorized core
power level for PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station] from the
current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3514 megawatts thermal
(MWt) to 3951 MWt. Evaluations and analyses of the nuclear steam
supply system (NSSS) and balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the power uprate
were performed in accordance [with] the approaches described in:
NEDC-33004P-A (commonly called CLTR), Licensing Topical
Report Constant Pressure Power Uprate, Revision 4,
NEDC-32424P-A (commonly called ELTR1), Generic
Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power
Uprate, and
NEDC-32523P-A (commonly called ELTR2), Generic
Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power
Uprate.
The evaluations concluded that all plant components, as
modified, will continue to be capable of performing their design
function at the proposed uprated core power level.
The PBAPS licensing and design bases, including PBAPS accident
analyses, were also evaluated for the effect of the proposed power
increase. The evaluation concluded that the applicable analysis
acceptance criteria continue to be met.
Power level is not an initiator of any transient or accident; it
is used as an input assumption to equipment design and accident
analyses. The proposed change does not affect the release paths or
the frequency of release for any accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Structures,
systems, and components required to mitigate transients remain
capable of performing their design functions considering
radiological consequences associated with the effect of the proposed
EPU. The source terms used to evaluate the radiological consequences
were reviewed and were determined to bound [plant] operation at EPU
power levels. The results of EPU accident evaluations do not exceed
NRC-approved acceptance limits.
The spectrum of postulated accidents and transients were
reviewed and were shown to meet the regulatory criteria to which
PBAPS is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and core design,
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met.
Continued compliance with the SLMPCR and other SAFDLs is confirmed
on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by
the NRC.
Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were
evaluated at EPU conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and
radiation) and found to meet the acceptance criteria for allowable
stresses. Adequate overpressure margin is maintained with the
addition of one main steam safety valve.
Challenges to the containment were also evaluated. Containment
and its associated cooling system continue to meet applicable
regulatory requirements. The calculated post Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) suppression pool temperature decreases due to
modifications and methodology changes and remain acceptable.
Radiological releases were evaluated and found to be within the
regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term.'']
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions
they do not significantly increase the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The non-safety related Replacement Steam Dryer (RSD) must
function to maintain structural integrity and avoid generation of
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The RSD analyses demonstrate
the structural integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at EPU
conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The increase in power does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power
level for PBAPS from the current maximum license thermal power of
3514 MWt to 3951 MWt. An evaluation of the equipment that could be
affected by the power uprate has been performed. No new accident
scenarios or equipment failure modes were identified. Due to the
voluntary elimination of the need for containment accident pressure
credit, the EPU safety analysis for primary containment response
credits a modification to the residual heat removal system which
involves a change in a safety-related equipment lineup. However,
this modification and new line up does not result in a new type of
accident. The full spectrum of accident considerations was evaluated
and no new or different kinds of accidents were identified. For
PBAPS, the standard evaluation methods outlined in CLTR, ELTR1, and
ELTR2 were applied to the capability of existing or modified safety-
related plant equipment. No new accidents or event precursors were
identified.
All [SSCs] previously required for the mitigation of a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended design functions with
the addition of one main steam safety valve. The addition of the
main steam safety valve does not adversely affect the main steam
system nor create an accident or malfunction of a different kind.
The proposed increase in power does not adversely affect safety-
related systems or components and does not challenge the performance
or integrity of any safety-related systems. The change does not
adversely affect any current system interfaces or create any new
interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a
different kind than was previously evaluated. Operating at the
proposed EPU power level does not create any new accident initiators
or precursors.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident
initiators and by maintaining their current functions they do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The new RSD does not have any new design functions. RSD analyses
demonstrate
[[Page 21169]]
the RSD will be capable of performing the design function of
maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, there are no new or
different kinds of accidents from those previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed increase in power does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the analyses of the proposed power increase, the
relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met without a
significant reduction in margins of safety. The analyses supporting
EPU have demonstrated that the PBAPS [SSCs] are capable of safely
performing at EPU conditions with the addition of one main steam
safety valve. The analyses identified and defined the major input
parameters to the [NSSS], analyzed NSSS design transients, and
evaluated the capabilities of the primary containment, NSSS fluid
systems, NSSS and [BOP], NSSS control systems and NSSS and BOP
components, as appropriate. Radiological consequences of design
basis events remain within regulatory limits and are not increased
significantly. The analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are
capable of achieving EPU conditions without significant reduction in
margins of safety, with the modifications discussed in this
application.
Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of
the power increase.
Calculated loads on SSCs important to safety have been shown to
remain within design allowables under EPU conditions for all design
basis event categories, including with the addition of one main
steam safety valve. Plant response to transients and accidents do
not result in exceeding acceptance criteria.
As appropriate, the evaluations that demonstrate acceptability
of EPU have been performed using methods that have either been
reviewed and approved by the NRC staff, or that are in compliance
with regulatory review guidance and standards established for
maintaining adequate margins of safety. These evaluations
demonstrate that there are no significant reductions in the margins
of safety.
Maximum power level is one of the inherent inputs that determine
the safe operating range defined by the accident analyses. The
Technical Specifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are conservative
with respect to the operating conditions defined by the Technical
Specifications. The engineering reviews performed for the constant
pressure [EPU] confirm that the accident analyses criteria are met
at the revised maximum allowable thermal power level of 3951 MWt.
Therefore, the adequacy of the revised Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe
operating range is also confirmed, and the increase in maximum
allowable power level does not involve a significant decrease in a
margin of safety.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of [containment accident pressure] credit do not change
the design functions within the applicable limits. The systems are
associated with accident or event response and do not significantly
affect accident initiators by maintaining their current functions
and they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident. The proposed Technical Specifications associated with
these modifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the bounds
of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The steam dryer is being replaced in order to ensure adequate
margin to the established structural requirements is maintained. The
new RSD does not have any new design functions and an analysis was
performed to confirm it will be capable of maintaining its
structural integrity. The power ascension test plan will verify that
the RSD conservatively meets the vibration and stress requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties
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 of this notice 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)
[[Page 21170]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of April 2013.
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....................................... The U.S. 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 the 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 the 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.
[[Page 21171]]
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. 2013-07957 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
