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, 31190-31197 [2018-12919]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31190
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in the
Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit
Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: February
2, 2018.
Description of amendments: The
amendments authorized the Southern
Nuclear Operating Company to depart
from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plantspecific Appendix A, technical
specifications as incorporated into the
VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and
changed to the approved AP1000 Design
Control Document Tier 2 information as
incorporated into the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Specifically, the changes to the COLs
Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the
core operating limits report
documentation to remove certain reactor
trip instrumentation from the list of core
operating limits and include analytical
methods mentioned elsewhere in the TS
and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct
a typographical error in a description of
a radiation monitoring device that may
be used in a high radiation area. The
changes to the UFSAR Tier 2 Table 1.6–
1, ‘‘Material Referenced,’’ and Section
4.3.5, ‘‘References,’’ updated the list of
references as described in the
application.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and
123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18123A511; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR
10911).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in the
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2,
Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request:
September 18, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments relocated the defined core
plane regions where the radial peaking
factor limits are not applicable, called
radial peaking factor exclusion zones,
from TS 4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating
Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also
revised the COLR Administrative
Controls TS to add exclusion zones to
the list of limits found in the COLRs,
and revised the description of the
methodology used to determine the
values for the radial peaking factor
exclusion zones. In addition, the
amendment corrected two
administrative errors.
Date of issuance: June 7, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and
199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18128A342; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR
57475).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
United States Maritime Administration
(MARAD), Docket No. 50–238, Nuclear
Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore,
Maryland
Date of amendment request: March
30, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to establish controls for
all accesses to the Containment Vessel
in support of two structural
modifications.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 16. A publicallyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18109A578.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Facility Operating License No. NS–1:
The amendment revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20863).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
of June 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018–13758 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2018–0116]
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 three
amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Oconee Nuclear Station,
Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane Arnold
Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, 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.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be filed by
August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 3, 2018. 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 July
13, 2018.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0116. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer
Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127;
email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7–
A60M, 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 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:
ADDRESSES:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
Please include Docket ID NRC–2018–
0116, 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
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018–
0116, 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 website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0116.
• 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
B. Submitting Comments
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31191
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated, or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period 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 petition for leave to
intervene (petition) with respect to the
action. 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. The NRC’s regulations
are accessible electronically from the
NRC Library on the NRC’s website at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC’s
Public Document Room, located at One
White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (First floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed,
the Commission or a presiding officer
will rule on the petition and, if
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31192
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be
issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the
petition should specifically explain the
reasons why intervention should be
permitted with particular reference to
the following general requirements for
standing: (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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f),
the petition must also set forth the
specific contentions which the
petitioner seeks to have litigated in 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
must 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 the specific
sources and documents on which the
petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must
include sufficient information to show
that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant or licensee on a material issue
of law or fact. Contentions must be
limited to matters within the scope of
the proceeding. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the
petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10
CFR 2.309(f) 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. Parties have the opportunity
to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of
that party’s admitted contentions,
including the opportunity to present
evidence, consistent with the NRC’s
regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than
60 days from the date of publication of
this notice. Petitions and motions for
leave to file new or amended
contentions that are filed after the
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) through (iii). The petition
must be filed in accordance with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic
Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this
document.
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
establish 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 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 the 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 no later than 60 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
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 Federallyrecognized 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. Alternatively, a State,
local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof may participate as a non-party
under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person
who is not a party to the proceeding and
is not affiliated with or represented by
a party may, at 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 his or her
position on the issues but may not
otherwise participate in the proceeding.
A limited appearance may be made at
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the
limits and 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 and petition for
leave to intervene (petition), any motion
or other document filed in the
proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to
intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities that
request to participate 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 EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Detailed guidance on
making electronic submissions may be
found in the Guidance for Electronic
Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC
website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals.html. 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 (1) request a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it
is participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a petition or other
adjudicatory document (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 website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. Once a participant
has obtained a digital ID certificate and
a docket has been created, the
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
participant can then submit
adjudicatory documents. Submissions
must be in Portable Document Format
(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A
filing is considered complete at the time
the document is 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 document on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can
obtain access to the documents via the
E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located
on the NRC’s public website 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 6 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, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing adjudicatory
documents in this manner are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
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://
adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission
or the presiding officer. If you do not
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate
as described above, click cancel when
the link requests certificates and you
will be automatically directed to the
NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly
available documents in a particular
hearing docket. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
personal phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home
addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2,
and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October
20, 2017. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17299A125.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendments
would revise the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) to provide offnominal success criteria for maintaining
the reactor in a safe shutdown condition
when using the Standby Shutdown
Facility (SSF) to mitigate a Turbine
Building (TB) flood occurring when an
Oconee Nuclear Station unit is not at
nominal full power conditions. The
amendments would also revise the
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31193
UFSAR to allow the use of the Main
Steam (MS) Atmospheric Dump Valves
(ADVs), when available, to enhance SSF
mitigation capabilities.
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 provides off-nominal
success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood
events occurring during off-nominal initial
conditions. The proposed change does not
impact the current success criteria for SSF
events occurring during nominal full power
initial conditions. The LAR [license
amendment request] also requests NRC
approval to use the MS ADVs, when
available, to enhance SSF mitigation
capabilities. The proposed change does not
adversely impact containment integrity,
radiological release pathways, fuel design,
filtration systems, main steam relief valve set
points, or radwaste systems. No new
radiological release pathways are created.
During licensing of the SSF design, SSF
performance was evaluated assuming the
events that were to be mitigated by the SSF
were initiated from nominal full power
conditions. Duke Energy analyses
demonstrate that SSF mitigated Turbine
Building flood events occurring during offnominal full power conditions can be
mitigated acceptably when the proposed offnominal success criteria are met. As such, the
proposed change does not have a significant
impact on the dose consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The SSF is
not an event initiator; therefore, it does not
affect the frequency of occurrence of
accidents previously evaluated in the
UFSAR. The use of off-nominal success
criteria is not a precursor to a TB flood event;
therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability of any event requiring operation
of the SSF. The proposed off-nominal success
criteria will continue to ensure the SSF can
maintain the unit(s) in a safe shutdown
condition. As such, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of any event requiring
operation of the SSF.
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 UFSAR change requests
approval to modify the SSF licensing basis
for off-nominal conditions by using offnominal success criteria for SSF mitigated TB
flood events occurring during off-nominal
conditions. Duke Energy analyses
demonstrate that meeting the off-nominal
success criteria is an acceptable method of
mitigating the TB flood event and does not
create the possibility of a new or different
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
31194
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
kind of accident. The LAR also requests NRC
approval to use the main steam atmospheric
dump valves, when available, to enhance the
mitigation of SSF events. The proposed
change does not change the design function
or operation of the SSF. The SSF is designed
with the capability to mitigate a TB flood and
meet specific success criteria for the entire 72
hour mission time. These changes do not
adversely affect this mission time.
The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident since the proposed change does not
introduce credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not
considered in the design and licensing bases.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests approval of
an off-nominal set of success criteria for SSF
mitigated TB flood events occurring during
off-nominal power conditions. Duke Energy
analyses demonstrate there is adequate
margin to prevent lift of pressurizer safety
valves while water-solid. The proposed
change does not involve operating installed
equipment (ADVs) in a new or different
manner. The ADVs are periodically tested
and have been used successfully for a plant
cooldown. Use of the ADVs to enhance the
mitigation of SSF events serves to improve
plant safety by preventing the pressurizer
from reaching water-solid conditions and by
reducing the pressure at which the MS
system is controlled. ADV use also allows
plant stabilization to occur more quickly and
at lower temperatures, and eliminates
repeated cycling of the MS relief valves. The
proposed change does not involve a change
to any set points for parameters which
initiate protective or mitigation action and
does not have any impact on the fission
product barriers or safety limits. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
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: Kate Nolan,
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC,
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request:
December 15, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML17352A335.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would modify Technical Specification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
(TS) 3.6.1.7, ‘‘Suppression Chamber-toDrywell Vacuum Breakers,’’ by revising
the required number of operable
vacuum breakers for opening from six to
five.
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.
Operable suppression chamber-to-drywell
vacuum breakers are required for accident
mitigation. Failure of the vacuum breakers is
not assumed as an accident initiator for any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, any
potential failure of a vacuum breaker to
perform when necessary will not affect the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change maintains a
sufficient number of operable vacuum
breakers to meet the limiting design basis
accident conditions. The consequences of an
accident previously evaluated while utilizing
the proposed change are no different than the
consequences of an accident prior to the
proposed change. As a result, the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased
[sic].
Therefore, the proposed TS change does
not involve an increase in the probability or
consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the
protection system design, create new failure
modes, or change any modes of operation.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant; and no new
or different kind of equipment will be
installed. Consequently, there are no new
initiators that could result in a new or
different kind of accident.
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.
The proposed change to the minimum
number of operable suppression chamber-todrywell vacuum breakers for opening ensures
that an excessive negative differential
pressure between the suppression chamber
and the drywell will be prevented during the
most limiting postulated design-basis event.
The minimum number of operable
suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum
breakers for opening is set appropriately to
ensure adequate margin based on the number
of available vacuum breakers not having an
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
effect on the containment system analysis
report. 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 Blair,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida
33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: March 9,
2018. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Package Accession No.
ML18068A685.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to add TS 3.7.20,
‘‘Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air
Conditioning (A/C) System,’’ to the
Callaway Plant TSs. This proposed
change would enhance the capability of
one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C
train to provide adequate area cooling
for both trains of Class 1E electrical
equipment during normal and accident
conditions.
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 safety-related Class 1E Electrical
Equipment A/C system is designed to
perform its area cooling function for the Class
1E electrical equipment during normal and
accident conditions. Since the supported
Class 1E electrical equipment is utilized and
required to be available for accident
mitigation, the Class 1E Electrical Equipment
A/C system performs an accident mitigation
function. The system itself, however, is not
involved in the initiation of accidents
previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final
Safety Analysis Report]. That is, failure of the
Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system
itself is not an initiator of such accidents, and
consequently, the proposed addition of TS
3.7.20 does not involve an increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
The proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 creates
an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
requirement for Operability of both Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C trains during
applicable plant conditions. The LCO
requirement for both trains to be Operable
provides redundancy and single-failure
protection, thus maximizing the availability
of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C
system function(s). This serves to preserve
assumptions regarding the Operability and/or
availability of the Class 1E electrical
equipment supported by the Class 1E
Electrical Equipment A/C system.
In addition to the proposed LCO requiring
the Operability of both Class 1E electrical
equipment A/C trains, a Condition and
associated Required Actions are proposed to
address the inoperability of one of the Class
1E electrical equipment A/C trains. The
proposed Required Action(s) provides for
more than merely specifying a Completion
Time for restoring the inoperable train.
Proposed Actions A.1 and A.2 together
ensure a continuation of the Class 1E
electrical equipment cooling function for
both trains of equipment by requiring
mitigating actions to be taken and periodic
verification that room area temperatures
remain within the specified limit. These
Required Actions are met through enhanced
ventilation capability provided by plant
modifications that enable the remaining
single Operable Class 1E electrical equipment
A/C train to provide adequate cooling to the
areas of both trains of Class 1E electrical
equipment. This ensures continued area
cooling during the period of time permitted
for restoring the inoperable Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C train.
The addition of TS 3.7.20 to the plant’s
Technical Specifications thus supports the
availability of the Class 1E Electrical
Equipment A/C cooling function, consistent
with the assumptions of the plant’s accident
analysis. This support of the intended
accident mitigation capability means that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
In regard to the accident analyses and
assumed overall protection system
capability/response, protection system
performance will remain within the bounds
of the previously performed accident
analyses since no hardware changes are being
made to the protection systems. The same
Reactor Trip System (RTS) and Engineered
Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS)
instrumentation will continue to be
supported and used as assumed so that the
protection systems will continue to function
in a manner consistent with the plant design
basis.
With regard to the proposed change to TS
5.5.11.e and the associated reduction in
heater capacity for the heaters in the Control
Room Pressurization System filter trains, the
heaters function to mitigate accidents
previously evaluated in the FSAR, but failure
of the heaters themselves (or the filter trains
themselves) is not an initiator of such
accidents. Further, even with the proposed
reduction in heater capacity (wattage), the
new heater capacity will still exceed filter
operational requirements and the required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
safety margin by a significant amount.
Therefore, the proposed change to the heater
capacity will not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident described in the
Callaway FSAR.
In consideration of all the above, for both
TS changes, the proposed amendment 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 new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents are required
to be postulated from addition of proposed
TS 3.7.20. No new accident scenarios,
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as
a result of this amendment. The proposed
LCO will require both Class 1E electrical
equipment A/C trains to be maintained
OPERABLE during plant operation, thereby
maintaining the capability of the system to
perform its specified safety function for the
supported electrical equipment. The
proposed license amendment includes
regulatory commitments to achieve the
capability for one OPERABLE Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C train to provide
adequate cooling for both trains of electrical
equipment during normal and accident
conditions via design changes, but that
capability will only be utilized per the
temporary provisions of a Condition and
Required Action(s) under TS 3.7.20.
The proposed amendment will not alter the
design or performance of the 7300 Process
Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation
System, Solid State Protection System,
Balance of Plant Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System, Main Steam and
Feedwater Isolation System, or Load Shedder
and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the
plant protection systems. As such, the change
does not have a detrimental impact on the
manner in which plant equipment operates
or responds to an actuation signal.
With respect to the proposed change to TS
5.5.11.e and the associated reduction in
heater capacity for the control room
pressurization system filter trains, only the
heater wattage/capacity is being changed.
Overall system operation and required
performance is not being changed. No other
plant system is affected by this change
(except for the beneficial effect of the
reduced heat load on the Class 1E electrical
equipment A/C system), and no new system
operation or required response is introduced
by this change.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment will not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Proposed TS 3.7.20 includes a provision
for restoring an inoperable Class 1E electrical
equipment cooling train to Operable status
within a reasonable but required Completion
Time, which is consistent with the many
other Technical Specifications for systems
having independent and redundant trains
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31195
(based on the relatively low risk associated
with such a condition when single-failure
protection is momentarily not ensured for the
affected system). In this case, however, if
availability of the Class 1E electrical
equipment supported by the Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C system is
considered a margin of safety, the reduction
in such a margin of safety for when a Class
1E electrical equipment cooling train is
declared inoperable is minimized due to the
calculated capability of one A/C train to
provide adequate cooling to both trains of
Class 1E electrical equipment during normal
and accident conditions (with proposed
Condition A and its Required Actions in
effect). The provision for restoring an
inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment
cooling train to Operable status within a
reasonable but required Completion Time
also allows a reasonable period to perform
preventive and corrective maintenance, thus
increasing or maintaining system reliability.
With respect to the Class 1E electrical
equipment and the area temperatures
assumed for this equipment during normal
conditions, that associated margin of safety is
maintained by the requirement under
proposed TS 3.7.20 (for when one Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C train is declared
inoperable) to periodically verify that the
area/room temperatures are maintained
within the specified limit (of less than or
equal to 90 °F [degrees Fahrenheit]). In
addition, the capability to remain at or below
the post-accident temperature limit (of
104 °F) for the Class 1E electrical equipment
rooms will continue to be met, even with
only one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C
train OPERABLE, (providing the applicable
Required Action under proposed TS 3.7.20 is
met).
It should also be noted that the addition of
TS 3.7.20 has no impact on calculated
releases and doses for postulated accidents,
or on ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling
System] actuation or RPS [Reactor Protection
System]/ESFAS protection setpoints/limiting
safety system settings, or any other parameter
that could affect a margin of safety.
For the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and
the associated reduction in heater capacity
for the charcoal filters in the control room
pressurization trains, it should be noted that
even with the proposed reduction, the
minimum required heating capacity (for
ensuring an influent air humidity of less than
or equal to 70% relative humidity for the
filter absorber train) would still be more than
met. Thus, for this proposed change, there is
no significant reduction in the margin of
safety in regard to required pressurization
train performance for the control room
emergency ventilation system.
Therefore, based on the above, the
proposed amendment 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.
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
31196
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill,
Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC,
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
A. This Order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to this
proceeding may request access to
documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of
this notice of hearing and opportunity to
petition for leave to intervene, any
potential party who believes access to
SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
notice may request access to SUNSI. 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, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 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,’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 receipt of (or
access to) that information. 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 initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief
Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not
yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline
for the receipt of the written access request.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff after a
determination on standing and requisite
need, 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) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under
this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
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 within 5 days of
the notification by the NRC staff of its
grant of access and must be filed with:
(a) The presiding officer designated in
this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an Administrative Law Judge
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
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.
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
The attachment 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 11th day
of June, 2018.
31197
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; and 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).
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 opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
10 ......................
60 ......................
20 ......................
25 ......................
30 ......................
40 ......................
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
Week of July 16, 2018—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of July 16, 2018.
[FR Doc. 2018–12919 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of July 23, 2018—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of July 23, 2018.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2018–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
Weeks of July 2, 9, 16, 23, 30,
August 6, 2018.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
DATE:
Week of July 2, 2018
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of July 2, 2018.
Week of July 9, 2018—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of July 9, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
Week of July 30, 2018—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of July 30, 2018.
Week of August 6, 2018—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 6, 2018.
*
*
*
*
*
The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. For more information or to verify
the status of meetings, contact Denise
McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email
at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the internet
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer-Chambers, NRC
Disability Program Manager, at 301–
287–0739, by videophone at 240–428–
3217, or by email at Kimberly.MeyerChambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
Members of the public may request to
receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM
03JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31190-31197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0116]
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 three amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane
Arnold Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, 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 August 2, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 3, 2018. 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 July 13, 2018.
[[Page 31191]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0116. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, 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 Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0116, 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 website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0116.
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 [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced 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-2018-0116, 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 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 petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. 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. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
[[Page 31192]]
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in 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 must 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 the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) 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.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
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 establish 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 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 the 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 no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 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. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
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
his or her 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
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 and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate 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. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 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 [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (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 website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the
[[Page 31193]]
participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be
in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is
considered complete at the time the document is 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 document on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that
they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 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, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents 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://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17299A125.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) to provide off-nominal success criteria for maintaining the
reactor in a safe shutdown condition when using the Standby Shutdown
Facility (SSF) to mitigate a Turbine Building (TB) flood occurring when
an Oconee Nuclear Station unit is not at nominal full power conditions.
The amendments would also revise the UFSAR to allow the use of the Main
Steam (MS) Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs), when available, to enhance
SSF mitigation capabilities.
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 provides off-nominal success criteria for
SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during off-nominal initial
conditions. The proposed change does not impact the current success
criteria for SSF events occurring during nominal full power initial
conditions. The LAR [license amendment request] also requests NRC
approval to use the MS ADVs, when available, to enhance SSF
mitigation capabilities. The proposed change does not adversely
impact containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel
design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve set points, or
radwaste systems. No new radiological release pathways are created.
During licensing of the SSF design, SSF performance was evaluated
assuming the events that were to be mitigated by the SSF were
initiated from nominal full power conditions. Duke Energy analyses
demonstrate that SSF mitigated Turbine Building flood events
occurring during off-nominal full power conditions can be mitigated
acceptably when the proposed off-nominal success criteria are met.
As such, the proposed change does not have a significant impact on
the dose consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The SSF
is not an event initiator; therefore, it does not affect the
frequency of occurrence of accidents previously evaluated in the
UFSAR. The use of off-nominal success criteria is not a precursor to
a TB flood event; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of any event requiring
operation of the SSF. The proposed off-nominal success criteria will
continue to ensure the SSF can maintain the unit(s) in a safe
shutdown condition. As such, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of any event requiring
operation of the SSF.
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 UFSAR change requests approval to modify the SSF
licensing basis for off-nominal conditions by using off-nominal
success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during
off-nominal conditions. Duke Energy analyses demonstrate that
meeting the off-nominal success criteria is an acceptable method of
mitigating the TB flood event and does not create the possibility of
a new or different
[[Page 31194]]
kind of accident. The LAR also requests NRC approval to use the main
steam atmospheric dump valves, when available, to enhance the
mitigation of SSF events. The proposed change does not change the
design function or operation of the SSF. The SSF is designed with
the capability to mitigate a TB flood and meet specific success
criteria for the entire 72 hour mission time. These changes do not
adversely affect this mission time.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident since the proposed change does not
introduce credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests approval of an off-nominal set of
success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood events occurring during
off-nominal power conditions. Duke Energy analyses demonstrate there
is adequate margin to prevent lift of pressurizer safety valves
while water-solid. The proposed change does not involve operating
installed equipment (ADVs) in a new or different manner. The ADVs
are periodically tested and have been used successfully for a plant
cooldown. Use of the ADVs to enhance the mitigation of SSF events
serves to improve plant safety by preventing the pressurizer from
reaching water-solid conditions and by reducing the pressure at
which the MS system is controlled. ADV use also allows plant
stabilization to occur more quickly and at lower temperatures, and
eliminates repeated cycling of the MS relief valves. The proposed
change does not involve a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action and does not have any
impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. 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: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17352A335.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.7,
``Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breakers,'' by revising the
required number of operable vacuum breakers for opening from six to
five.
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.
Operable suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers are
required for accident mitigation. Failure of the vacuum breakers is
not assumed as an accident initiator for any accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, any potential failure of a vacuum breaker to
perform when necessary will not affect the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change maintains a sufficient number of operable
vacuum breakers to meet the limiting design basis accident
conditions. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated
while utilizing the proposed change are no different than the
consequences of an accident prior to the proposed change. As a
result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased [sic].
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve an increase
in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant;
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
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.
The proposed change to the minimum number of operable
suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers for opening ensures
that an excessive negative differential pressure between the
suppression chamber and the drywell will be prevented during the
most limiting postulated design-basis event. The minimum number of
operable suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers for opening
is set appropriately to ensure adequate margin based on the number
of available vacuum breakers not having an effect on the containment
system analysis report. 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 Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach,
Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: March 9, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18068A685.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to add TS
3.7.20, ``Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air Conditioning (A/C)
System,'' to the Callaway Plant TSs. This proposed change would enhance
the capability of one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train to
provide adequate area cooling for both trains of Class 1E electrical
equipment during normal and accident conditions.
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 safety-related Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system is
designed to perform its area cooling function for the Class 1E
electrical equipment during normal and accident conditions. Since
the supported Class 1E electrical equipment is utilized and required
to be available for accident mitigation, the Class 1E Electrical
Equipment A/C system performs an accident mitigation function. The
system itself, however, is not involved in the initiation of
accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis
Report]. That is, failure of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C
system itself is not an initiator of such accidents, and
consequently, the proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 does not involve an
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 31195]]
The proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 creates an LCO [Limiting
Condition for Operation] requirement for Operability of both Class
1E electrical equipment A/C trains during applicable plant
conditions. The LCO requirement for both trains to be Operable
provides redundancy and single-failure protection, thus maximizing
the availability of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system
function(s). This serves to preserve assumptions regarding the
Operability and/or availability of the Class 1E electrical equipment
supported by the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system.
In addition to the proposed LCO requiring the Operability of
both Class 1E electrical equipment A/C trains, a Condition and
associated Required Actions are proposed to address the
inoperability of one of the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C
trains. The proposed Required Action(s) provides for more than
merely specifying a Completion Time for restoring the inoperable
train. Proposed Actions A.1 and A.2 together ensure a continuation
of the Class 1E electrical equipment cooling function for both
trains of equipment by requiring mitigating actions to be taken and
periodic verification that room area temperatures remain within the
specified limit. These Required Actions are met through enhanced
ventilation capability provided by plant modifications that enable
the remaining single Operable Class 1E electrical equipment A/C
train to provide adequate cooling to the areas of both trains of
Class 1E electrical equipment. This ensures continued area cooling
during the period of time permitted for restoring the inoperable
Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train.
The addition of TS 3.7.20 to the plant's Technical
Specifications thus supports the availability of the Class 1E
Electrical Equipment A/C cooling function, consistent with the
assumptions of the plant's accident analysis. This support of the
intended accident mitigation capability means that the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
In regard to the accident analyses and assumed overall
protection system capability/response, protection system performance
will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident
analyses since no hardware changes are being made to the protection
systems. The same Reactor Trip System (RTS) and Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation will continue to be
supported and used as assumed so that the protection systems will
continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design
basis.
With regard to the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the
associated reduction in heater capacity for the heaters in the
Control Room Pressurization System filter trains, the heaters
function to mitigate accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR, but
failure of the heaters themselves (or the filter trains themselves)
is not an initiator of such accidents. Further, even with the
proposed reduction in heater capacity (wattage), the new heater
capacity will still exceed filter operational requirements and the
required safety margin by a significant amount. Therefore, the
proposed change to the heater capacity will not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident described in the Callaway
FSAR.
In consideration of all the above, for both TS changes, the
proposed amendment 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 new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents are required to be postulated from
addition of proposed TS 3.7.20. No new accident scenarios, transient
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be
introduced as a result of this amendment. The proposed LCO will
require both Class 1E electrical equipment A/C trains to be
maintained OPERABLE during plant operation, thereby maintaining the
capability of the system to perform its specified safety function
for the supported electrical equipment. The proposed license
amendment includes regulatory commitments to achieve the capability
for one OPERABLE Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train to provide
adequate cooling for both trains of electrical equipment during
normal and accident conditions via design changes, but that
capability will only be utilized per the temporary provisions of a
Condition and Required Action(s) under TS 3.7.20.
The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance
of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation
System, Solid State Protection System, Balance of Plant Engineered
Safety Features Actuation System, Main Steam and Feedwater Isolation
System, or Load Shedder and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the
plant protection systems. As such, the change does not have a
detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment operates
or responds to an actuation signal.
With respect to the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the
associated reduction in heater capacity for the control room
pressurization system filter trains, only the heater wattage/
capacity is being changed. Overall system operation and required
performance is not being changed. No other plant system is affected
by this change (except for the beneficial effect of the reduced heat
load on the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C system), and no new
system operation or required response is introduced by this change.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Proposed TS 3.7.20 includes a provision for restoring an
inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment cooling train to Operable
status within a reasonable but required Completion Time, which is
consistent with the many other Technical Specifications for systems
having independent and redundant trains (based on the relatively low
risk associated with such a condition when single-failure protection
is momentarily not ensured for the affected system). In this case,
however, if availability of the Class 1E electrical equipment
supported by the Class 1E electrical equipment A/C system is
considered a margin of safety, the reduction in such a margin of
safety for when a Class 1E electrical equipment cooling train is
declared inoperable is minimized due to the calculated capability of
one A/C train to provide adequate cooling to both trains of Class 1E
electrical equipment during normal and accident conditions (with
proposed Condition A and its Required Actions in effect). The
provision for restoring an inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment
cooling train to Operable status within a reasonable but required
Completion Time also allows a reasonable period to perform
preventive and corrective maintenance, thus increasing or
maintaining system reliability.
With respect to the Class 1E electrical equipment and the area
temperatures assumed for this equipment during normal conditions,
that associated margin of safety is maintained by the requirement
under proposed TS 3.7.20 (for when one Class 1E electrical equipment
A/C train is declared inoperable) to periodically verify that the
area/room temperatures are maintained within the specified limit (of
less than or equal to 90[emsp14][deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit]). In
addition, the capability to remain at or below the post-accident
temperature limit (of 104[emsp14][deg]F) for the Class 1E electrical
equipment rooms will continue to be met, even with only one Class 1E
electrical equipment A/C train OPERABLE, (providing the applicable
Required Action under proposed TS 3.7.20 is met).
It should also be noted that the addition of TS 3.7.20 has no
impact on calculated releases and doses for postulated accidents, or
on ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] actuation or RPS [Reactor
Protection System]/ESFAS protection setpoints/limiting safety system
settings, or any other parameter that could affect a margin of
safety.
For the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and the associated
reduction in heater capacity for the charcoal filters in the control
room pressurization trains, it should be noted that even with the
proposed reduction, the minimum required heating capacity (for
ensuring an influent air humidity of less than or equal to 70%
relative humidity for the filter absorber train) would still be more
than met. Thus, for this proposed change, there is no significant
reduction in the margin of safety in regard to required
pressurization train performance for the control room emergency
ventilation system.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed amendment 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.
[[Page 31196]]
Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request access to SUNSI. 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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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
[email protected] and [email protected], respectively.\1\ The
request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the 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
receipt of (or access to) that information. 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.
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 requisite need, 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) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
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 within 5 days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The
presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or
she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative
Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if
another officer has been designated to rule on information access
issues, with that officer.
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.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
[[Page 31197]]
The attachment 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 11th day of June, 2018.
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[dash]Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with
information: Supporting the standing of a
potential party identified by name and
address; and 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).
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 opportunity to request a hearing
and petition for leave to intervene), 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. 2018-12919 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
