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, 68467-68474 [2016-23210]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0194]
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;
notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave
to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four
amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3;
Columbia Generating Station; Hope
Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2; and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Unit No. 1. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes
to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Because each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain
access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be filed by
November 3, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 5,
2016. Any potential party as defined in
§ 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), who believes
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond
to this notice must request document
access by October 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0194. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
5411, email: Shirley.rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
0194, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for
this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0194.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• 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–2016–
0194, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68467
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 into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the NRC is publishing this
notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license 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.
III. 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
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
68468
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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 if 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.
If the Commission takes action prior to
the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will
publish a notice of issuance in the
Federal Register. If the Commission
makes 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any persons
(petitioner) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request
for a hearing and a petition to intervene
(petition) with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license.
Petitions shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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’s 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary
or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will
issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition shall set forth with particularity
the interest of the petitioner in the
proceeding, and how that interest may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the
petitioner’s right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the 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
petitioner’s interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions
which the 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 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 petitioner intends to rely in
proving the contention at the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide
references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or
expert opinion to support its position on
the issue. 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 petitioner to
relief. A 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 with respect to resolution of
that person’s admitted contentions,
including the opportunity to present
evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination
of witnesses, consistent with the NRC’s
regulations, policies, and procedures.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
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 unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof, may submit a petition to
the Commission to participate as a party
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature
and extent of the petitioner’s interest in
the proceeding. The petition should be
submitted to the Commission by
December 5, 2016. The petition must be
filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ‘‘Electronic
Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this
document, and should meet the
requirements for petitions set forth in
this section, except that under 10 CFR
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental
body, or Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in
10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located
within its boundaries. A State, local
governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person
who does not wish, or is not qualified,
to become a party to the proceeding
may, in the discretion of the presiding
officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions
of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or
written statement of position on the
issues, but may not otherwise
participate in the proceeding. A limited
appearance may be made at any session
of the hearing or at any prehearing
conference, subject to the limits and
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
conditions as may be imposed by the
presiding officer. Details regarding the
opportunity to make a limited
appearance will be provided by the
presiding officer if such sessions are
scheduled.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene
(hereinafter ‘‘petition’’), 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, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). 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 petition (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/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
adjudicatory-sub.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
Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
able to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a petition. Submissions should
be in Portable Document Format (PDF).
Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located
on the NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available
between 9 a.m. and 7 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 stating why there is good cause for
not filing electronically and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68469
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, in some
instances, a petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or
order granting or denying a hearing
request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing
that will be held and designating the
Presiding Officer. A notice granting a
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register and served on the parties to the
hearing.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(APS), Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN
50–529, and STN 50–530, Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County,
Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 1,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16188A336.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendments
would revise the Technical
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
68470
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1,
2, and 3, to support the implementation
of next generation fuel (NGF). In
addition to the license amendment
request (LAR), APS is requesting an
exemption from certain requirements of
10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria for
Emergency Core Cooling Systems
[(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power
Reactors,’’ and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K,
‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ to allow the
use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod
cladding material.
The proposed change will allow for
the implementation of NGF including
the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding material. The NGF assemblies
contain advanced features to enhance
fuel reliability, thermal performance,
and fuel cycle economics.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1
adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material as an acceptable material consistent
with the permanent exemption request
presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The NRC approved topical report CENPD–
404–P–A, Addendum 1–A and Addendum 2–
A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and
demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has
essentially the same properties as currently
licensed ZIRLO®. The fuel cladding itself is
not an accident initiator and does not affect
accident probability. Use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to
meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and,
therefore, will not increase the consequences
of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS
Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5
have no impact on any plant configuration or
system performance. Changes to the
calculated core operating limits may only be
made using NRC approved methodologies,
must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10
CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of
referenced core operating analytical methods.
APS has demonstrated that the limitations
and conditions contained in the NRC Safety
Evaluation for these topical reports, and their
various supplements and revisions will be
met as described in Attachment 5 to [the
enclosure to APS’s letter dated July 1, 2016].
Therefore, the proposed change to TS
Section 5.6.5 does not involve a significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1
adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material as an acceptable material consistent
with the permanent exemption request
presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will
not result in changes in the operation or
configuration of the facility. Topical report
CENPD–404–P–A demonstrated that the
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM
are similar to those of standard ZIRLO®.
Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding will perform similarly to those
fabricated from standard ZIRLO® thus
precluding the possibility of the fuel
becoming an accident initiator and causing a
new or different type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS
Section 4.2.1 does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5
have no impact on any plant configuration or
system performance. Changes to the
calculated core operating limits may only be
made using NRC approved methodologies,
must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10
CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of
referenced core operating analytical methods.
APS has demonstrated that the limitations
and conditions contained in the NRC Safety
Evaluation for these topical reports, and their
various supplements and revisions as
identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure
to APS’s letter dated July 1, 2016], will be
met as described in Section 3.2.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1
adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material as an acceptable material consistent
with the permanent exemption request
presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The proposed change will not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety
because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized
ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from
those of standard ZIRLO®. Optimized
ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to
standard ZIRLO® for all normal operating,
transient, and accident scenarios, including
both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and
non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios,
where the slight difference in Optimized
ZIRLOTM material properties relative to
standard ZIRLO® could have some impact on
the overall accident scenario, plant-specific
LOCA analyses using Optimized ZIRLOTM
properties were performed. These LOCA
analyses demonstrate that the acceptance
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are satisfied when
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is
implemented.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS
Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5
have no impact on any plant configuration or
system performance. The proposed changes
to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRCapproved topical reports, as described, to the
list of referenced core operating analytical
methods. The proposed changes do not
amend the cycle specific parameter limits
located in the PVNGS unit specific [core
operating limits report (COLR)] from the
values presently required by the TS. The
individual specifications continue to require
operation of the plant within the bounds of
the limits specified in PVNGS unit specific
COLR.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G.
Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O.
Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix,
Arizona 85072–2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: June 28,
2016, as supplemented by letter dated
August 18, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and
ML16231A511.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise the operating license and
technical specifications to implement an
increase in rated thermal power from
the current licensed thermal power of
3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a
measurement uncertainty recapture
thermal power of 3544 MWt.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
Response: No.
The proposed change will increase the
Columbia Generating Station rated thermal
power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt.
The reviews and evaluations performed to
support the proposed uprated power
conditions included all structures, systems
and components that would be affected by
the proposed changes. The reviews and
evaluations determined that these structures,
systems, and components are capable of
performing their design function at the
proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All
accident mitigation systems will function as
designed, and all performance requirements
for these systems have been evaluated and
were found acceptable.
Thus, the proposed changes do not create
any new accident initiators or increase the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor
vessel, reactor internals, control rod drive
housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their
applicable structural limits and will continue
to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the
probability of a structural failure of these
components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will
continue to perform their intended design
functions during normal and accident
conditions. The balance of plant systems and
components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue
to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the
probability of a failure of these components.
The safety relief valves and containment
isolation valves meet design sizing
requirements at the uprated power level.
Because the integrity of the plant will not be
affected by operation at the uprated
condition, Energy Northwest has concluded
that all structures, systems, and components
required to mitigate a transient remain
capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
The current safety analyses remain
applicable, since they were performed at
power levels that bound operation at a core
power of 3544 MWt. The results demonstrate
that acceptance criteria of the applicable
analyses continue to be met at the uprated
conditions. As such, all applicable accident
analyses continue to comply with the
relevant event acceptance criteria. The
analyses performed to assess the effects of
mass and energy releases remain valid. The
source terms used to assess radiological
consequences have been reviewed and
determined to bound operation at the uprated
condition.
Power level is an input assumption to
equipment design and accident analyses, but
it is not a transient or accident initiator.
Accident initiators are not affected by power
uprate, and plant safety barrier challenges are
not created by the proposed changes.
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?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed
changes. The proposed changes do 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 previously evaluated. All
structures, systems and components
previously required for the mitigation of a
transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed
changes have no adverse effects on any
safety-related system or component and do
not challenge the performance or integrity of
any safety-related system.
Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does
not create any new accident initiators or
precursors. Credible malfunctions are
bounded by the current accident analysis of
record or recent evaluations demonstrate that
applicable criteria are still met with the
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margins of safety associated with the
power uprate are those pertaining to core
thermal power. Operation at the uprated
power condition does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Analyses of the primary fission product
barriers have concluded that relevant design
criteria remain satisfied, both from the
standpoint of the integrity of the primary
fission product barrier, and from the
standpoint of compliance with the required
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all
evaluations have been performed using
methods that have either been reviewed or
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354,
50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16190A248.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68471
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendments
would revise the Cyber Security Plan
(CSP) Milestone 8 implementation
schedule for Hope Creek Generating
Station and Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically,
this change would extend the PSEG
Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8
full implementation date as set forth in
the PSEG CSP implementation schedule
and revise the Facility Operating
Licenses.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed change to the CSP
Implementation Schedule is administrative
in nature. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed change does not require any
plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures,
systems, and components relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of postulated
accidents and has no impact on the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
The implementation of the PSEG CSP does
not introduce new equipment that could
create a new or different kind of accident,
and no new equipment failure modes are
created. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No
Plant safety margins are established
through limiting conditions for operation,
limiting safety system settings, and safety
limits specified in the technical
specifications. The proposed change to the
CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. In addition, the
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
68472
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
milestone date delay for full implementation
of the CSP has no substantive impact because
other measures have been taken which
provide adequate protection during this
period of time. Because there is no change to
established safety margins as a result of this
change, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2016, as supplement by letter dated
August 4, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16188A105 and
ML16221A034, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise the implementation date
for Milestone No. 8 of the Cyber
Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Schedule. This
change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change is a change to the completion date of
Implementation Milestone 8, that in itself
does not require any plant modifications
which affect the performance capability of
the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of
postulated accidents and have no impact on
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Schedule. This
proposed change to modify the completion
date of Implementation Milestone 8 does not
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not
require any plant modifications which affect
the performance capability of the structures,
systems and components relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of postulated
accidents. This change also does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established
through limiting conditions for operation,
limiting safety system settings, and safety
limits specified in the technical
specifications. The proposed change revises
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule. Because there is no change to these
established safety margins as result of this
change, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
PO 00000
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(APS), Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN
50–529, and STN 50–530, Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County,
Arizona
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354,
50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
A. This Order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to this
proceeding may request access to
documents containing 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 requester 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
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,’’
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
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 requester’s basis for the need for the
information in order to meaningfully
participate in this adjudicatory
proceeding. In particular, the request
must explain why publicly-available
versions of the information requested
would not be sufficient to provide the
basis and specificity for a proffered
contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under paragraph
C.(3) the NRC staff will determine
within 10 days of receipt of the request
whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to
believe the petitioner is likely to
establish standing to participate in this
NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the
requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2)
above, the NRC staff will notify the
requestor in writing that access to
SUNSI has been granted. The written
notification will contain instructions on
how the requestor may obtain copies of
the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to
those documents. These conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting
forth terms and conditions to prevent
the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual
who will be granted access to SUNSI.
F. Filing of Contentions. Any
contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received
as a result of the request made for
SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no
later than 25 days after the requestor is
provided access to that information.
However, if more than 25 days remain
between the date the petitioner is
provided 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. This
provision does not extend the time for
filing a request for a hearing and
petition to intervene, which must
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
2.309.
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 requester 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) an officer if that officer
has been designated to rule on
information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A
party other than the requester may
68473
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 proposed
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 19th day
of September, 2016.
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; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for
access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
10 ......................
60 ......................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
20 ......................
the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not
yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline
for the receipt of the written access request.
3 Requesters should note that the filing
requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46562, August 3, 2012) apply to appeals of NRC
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
68474
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
Day
Event/activity
25 ......................
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
(Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
30 ......................
40 ......................
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
[FR Doc. 2016–23210 Filed 10–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the
ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Materials;
Notice of Meeting
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
The ACRS Subcommittee on
Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Materials will hold a meeting on
October 18, 2016, Room T–2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public
attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
Tuesday, October 18, 2016—1:00 p.m.
Until 5:00 p.m.
The Subcommittee will discuss the
proposed final rule 10 CFR part 61,
‘‘Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal’’ and associated guidance. The
Subcommittee will hear presentations
by and hold discussions with the NRC
staff and other interested persons
regarding this matter. The
Subcommittee will gather information,
analyze relevant issues and facts, and
formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation
by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer
(Telephone 301–415–5375 or Email:
Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov) five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Oct 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided to the DFO thirty minutes
before the meeting. In addition, one
electronic copy of each presentation
should be emailed to the DFO one day
before the meeting. If an electronic copy
cannot be provided within this
timeframe, presenters should provide
the DFO with a CD containing each
presentation at least thirty minutes
before the meeting. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only
during those portions of the meeting
that are open to the public. Detailed
procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting
transcripts are available on the NRC
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/acrs. Information
regarding topics to be discussed,
changes to the agenda, whether the
meeting has been canceled or
rescheduled, and the time allotted to
present oral statements can be obtained
from the Web site cited above or by
contacting the identified DFO.
Moreover, in view of the possibility that
the schedule for ACRS meetings may be
adjusted by the Chairman as necessary
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting,
persons planning to attend should check
with these references if such
rescheduling would result in a major
inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter
through the One White Flint North
Building, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD. After registering with
security, please contact Mr. Theron
Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be
escorted to the meeting room.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: September 28, 2016.
John Lai,
Acting Chief, Technical Support Branch,
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016–23954 Filed 10–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. MC2016–207 and CP2016–296,
MC2016–208 and CP2016–297, MC2016–209
and CP2016–298, MC2016–210 and CP2016–
299]
New Postal Products
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing
recent Postal Service filings for the
Commission’s consideration concerning
negotiated service agreements. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: October 5,
2016 (Comment due date applies to all
Docket Nos. listed above).
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:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68467-68474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23210]
[[Page 68467]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0194]
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; notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3;
Columbia Generating Station; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. For each amendment request, the NRC
proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards
consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) an order imposes
procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 3, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 5, 2016. Any potential party as
defined in Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
notice must request document access by October 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0194. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0194, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0194.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
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-2016-0194, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as 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 into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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.
III. 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
[[Page 68468]]
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 if 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. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal
Register. If the Commission makes 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition)
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons 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's 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 petition 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 petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
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 petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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
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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support
its position on the issue. 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 petitioner
to relief. A 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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
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 three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
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 unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's
interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by December 5, 2016. The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements
for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
[[Page 68469]]
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter
``petition''), 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, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). 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 petition (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/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 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
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
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, in some instances, a petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A336.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Technical
[[Page 68470]]
Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, to support the
implementation of next generation fuel (NGF). In addition to the
license amendment request (LAR), APS is requesting an exemption from
certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for
Emergency Core Cooling Systems [(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod cladding
material.
The proposed change will allow for the implementation of NGF
including the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material. The NGF assemblies contain advanced features to enhance fuel
reliability, thermal performance, and fuel cycle economics.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The NRC approved topical report CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A and
Addendum 2-A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates
that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same
properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding
itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident
probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has
been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and, therefore,
will not increase the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and
revisions will be met as described in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure
to APS's letter dated July 1, 2016].
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical
report CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of
Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of standard
ZIRLO[supreg].
Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will
perform similarly to those fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg]
thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident
initiator and causing a new or different type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and
revisions as identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure to APS's
letter dated July 1, 2016], will be met as described in Section 3.2.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not
significantly different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg].
Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to
standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating, transient, and
accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA)
and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, where the slight
difference in Optimized ZIRLOTM material properties
relative to standard ZIRLO[supreg] could have some impact on the
overall accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using
Optimized ZIRLOTM properties were performed. These LOCA
analyses demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46
are satisfied when Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is
implemented.
Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any
plant configuration or system performance. The proposed changes to
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved topical reports, as
described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical
methods. The proposed changes do not amend the cycle specific
parameter limits located in the PVNGS unit specific [core operating
limits report (COLR)] from the values presently required by the TS.
The individual specifications continue to require operation of the
plant within the bounds of the limits specified in PVNGS unit
specific COLR.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated August 18, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and ML16231A511.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the operating license and technical
specifications to implement an increase in rated thermal power from the
current licensed thermal power of 3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a
measurement uncertainty recapture thermal power of 3544 MWt.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
[[Page 68471]]
Response: No.
The proposed change will increase the Columbia Generating
Station rated thermal power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt. The
reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed uprated
power conditions included all structures, systems and components
that would be affected by the proposed changes. The reviews and
evaluations determined that these structures, systems, and
components are capable of performing their design function at the
proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All accident mitigation systems
will function as designed, and all performance requirements for
these systems have been evaluated and were found acceptable.
Thus, the proposed changes do not create any new accident
initiators or increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural
failure of these components.
The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their
intended design functions.
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a failure of
these components. The safety relief valves and containment isolation
valves meet design sizing requirements at the uprated power level.
Because the integrity of the plant will not be affected by operation
at the uprated condition, Energy Northwest has concluded that all
structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
The current safety analyses remain applicable, since they were
performed at power levels that bound operation at a core power of
3544 MWt. The results demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the
applicable analyses continue to be met at the uprated conditions. As
such, all applicable accident analyses continue to comply with the
relevant event acceptance criteria. The analyses performed to assess
the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. The source
terms used to assess radiological consequences have been reviewed
and determined to bound operation at the uprated condition.
Power level is an input assumption to equipment design and
accident analyses, but it is not a transient or accident initiator.
Accident initiators are not affected by power uprate, and plant
safety barrier challenges are not created by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do 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 previously
evaluated. All structures, systems and components previously
required for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of
fulfilling their intended design functions. The proposed changes
have no adverse effects on any safety-related system or component
and do not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related system.
Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does not create any new
accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded
by the current accident analysis of record or recent evaluations
demonstrate that applicable criteria are still met with the proposed
changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margins of safety associated with the power uprate are those
pertaining to core thermal power. Operation at the uprated power
condition does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Analyses of the primary fission product barriers have
concluded that relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both from
the standpoint of the integrity of the primary fission product
barrier, and from the standpoint of compliance with the required
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all evaluations have been
performed using methods that have either been reviewed or approved
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or that are in compliance with
regulatory review guidance and standards.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16190A248.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8
implementation schedule for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, this
change would extend the PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the PSEG CSP implementation
schedule and revise the Facility Operating Licenses.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In
addition, the
[[Page 68472]]
milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no
substantive impact because other measures have been taken which
provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because
there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this
change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplement by letter
dated August 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16188A105 and ML16221A034, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the implementation date for Milestone No. 8 of
the Cyber Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change is a
change to the completion date of Implementation Milestone 8, that in
itself does not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule. This proposed change to modify the
completion date of Implementation Milestone 8 does not alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents.
This change also does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change
revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. Because
there is no change to these established safety margins as result of
this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing 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 requester 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\
[[Page 68473]]
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 requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is provided access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is provided 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.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
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 requester 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) an officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester 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\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012) 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 proposed 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 19th day of September, 2016.
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; and (ii) all
contentions whose formulation does not
require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/
requestor reply).
20........................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the
staff's determination whether the
request for access provides a reasonable
basis to believe standing can be
established and shows need for SUNSI.
(NRC staff also informs any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of
the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC
staff makes the finding of need for
SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC
staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents).
[[Page 68474]]
25........................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's denial of access; NRC staff
files copy of access determination with
the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated
officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff
finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
for any party to the proceeding whose
interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant
of access.
30........................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions
to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40........................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing
and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
staff to complete information processing
and file motion for Protective Order and
draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline
for applicant/licensee to file Non-
Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A............................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer
decision on motion for protective order
for access to sensitive information
(including schedule for providing access
and submission of contentions) or
decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3........................ Deadline for filing executed Non-
Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided
to SUNSI consistent with decision
issuing the protective order.
A + 28....................... Deadline for submission of contentions
whose development depends upon access to
SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner's receipt
of (or access to) the information and
the deadline for filing all other
contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
A + 53....................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends
upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60....................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60...................... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-23210 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P