[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39052-39059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15301]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or
Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards
Information
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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 sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards
information (SGI).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D44, Two
[[Page 39053]]
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received
may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a
hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings''
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available
records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 39054]]
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need
not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative)
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing
request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access
to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. 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.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes would allow for interim alternate steam generator tube repair
criterion, as specified in the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3)
technical specifications. The interim alternate repair criterion would
be for the upcoming refueling outage and the subsequent operating
cycle. The proposed request would also add three reporting criteria to
the MPS3 technical specifications for steam generator tube inspections.
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
Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed
changes affect only the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB), locked rotor,
and control rod ejection accident evaluations. Loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) conditions cause a compressive axial load to act on
the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube into the
tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in this
amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe
shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F
steam generators has shown that axial loading of the tubes is
negligible during an SSE.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from PWSCC [primary water
stress-corrosion cracking] below 17 inches from the TTS [top of
tubesheet] is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from
cracks within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam
generator tubes is [are] maintained by limiting the allowable
ligament size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to
203 degrees below 17 inches from the TTS for the subsequent
operating cycle. Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the
hydraulic expansion region due to the constraint provided by the
tubesheet. The potential for tube pullout is mitigated by limiting
the allowable crack size to 203 degrees for the subsequent operating
cycle. These allowable crack sizes take into account eddy current
uncertainty and crack growth rate. It has been shown that a
circumferential crack with an azimuthal extent of 203 degrees for
the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval meets the
performance criteria of NEI 97-06, Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program
Guidelines'' and Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for
Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized-water reactor] Steam Generator
Tubes.'' Therefore, the margin against tube burst/pullout is
maintained during normal and postulated accident conditions and the
proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequence of a SGTR.
The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure
of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB
event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting
from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-
tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident
conditions (including locked rotor and control rod ejection) has
been shown to remain within the accident analysis assumptions for
all axial or circumferentially oriented cracks occurring 17 inches
below the top of the tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is
limited to 150 gpd (approximately 0.10 gpm), the attendant accident
condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from indications
below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet, would be bounded by
0.35 gpm. This value is within the accident analysis assumptions for
the limiting design basis accident for MPS3, which is the postulated
SLB event.
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev.
2 and Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be
[[Page 39055]]
met and the proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new
or different [kind of] accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant
conditions upon implementation of the interim alternate repair
criteria. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment
or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing
equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
Therefore, based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions.
NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method
acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting GDC 14, 15, 31, and 32 by
reducing the probability and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions of tube
wall degradation beyond which tubes with unacceptable cracking, as
established by inservice inspection, should be removed from service
or repaired, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced.
This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are
consistent with the requirements of Section III of the ASME Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube or the tube-to-
tubesheet weld, Reference 4 defines a length of remaining tube
ligament that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due
to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factors
applied). Additionally, it is shown that application of the limited
tubesheet inspection depth criteria will not result in unacceptable
primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do
not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety
as defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or bases of
the plant Technical Specifications.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road,
Waterford, CT 06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 19, 2007, supplemented by
letters dated March 14, 2008, and March 26, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes would increase the allowed interval between local power range
monitor (LPRM) calibrations from 1000 effective full power hours (EFPH)
to 2000 EFPH as specified in the Limerick Generating Station (LGS),
Units 1 and 2, technical specifications. The proposed interval increase
is enabled by improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear
instrumentation that have occurred since LGS, Units 1 and 2, were
originally licensed.
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, with NRC staff annotations in
brackets, below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the surveillance interval for the
Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM) calibrations from 1000 Effective
Full Power Hours (EFPH) to 2000 EFPH. Increasing the frequency
interval between required LPRM calibrations is acceptable due to
improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear
instrumentation and therefore, the revised surveillance interval
continues to ensure that the LPRM detector signal is adequately
calibrated.
This proposed change will not alter the operation of process
variables, structures, systems, or components as described in the
LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does
not alter the initiation conditions or operational parameters for
the LPRM system and there is no new equipment introduced by the
extension of the LPRM calibration interval. The performance of the
APRM [average power range monitor], OPRM [oscillation power range
monitor], RBM [rod block monitor], and 3D MONICORE [core monitoring]
systems [are] not significantly affected by the proposed
surveillance interval increase. As such, the probability of
occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased.
The radiological consequences of an accident can be affected by
the thermal limits existing at the time of the postulated accident;
however, LPRM chamber exposure has no significant effect on the
calculated thermal limits since LPRM accuracy does not significantly
deviate with exposure. For the LPRM extended calibration interval,
the total [bundle] power uncertainty remains [within the accuracy
assumptions of the thermal limit calculation]. Therefore, the
thermal limit calculation is not significantly affected by LPRM
calibration frequency, and thus the radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE systems
is not significantly affected by the proposed LPRM surveillance
interval increase. The proposed change does not affect the control
parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant
equipment to transient conditions. The proposed change does not
change or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation or
failure mechanisms.
Therefore, based on the above information, 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no impact on equipment design or
fundamental operation, and there are no changes being made to safety
limits or safety system allowable values that would adversely affect
plant safety as a result of the proposed LPRM surveillance interval
increase. The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE
systems is not significantly affected by the proposed change. The
margin of safety can be affected by the thermal limits existing at
the time of the postulated accident; however, uncertainties
associated with LPRM chamber exposure have no significant effect on
the calculated thermal limits. The thermal limit calculation is not
significantly affected since LPRM sensitivity with exposure is well
defined. LPRM accuracy, [even when including an allowance for an
increased uncertainty associated with the LPRM update interval]
remains within the [assumptions] in the thermal analysis basis;
thereby maintaining thermal limits and the safety margin. The
proposed change does
[[Page 39056]]
not affect safety analysis assumptions or initial conditions and
therefore, the margin of safety in the original safety analyses are
maintained.
Therefore, based on the above information, 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, with changes in the areas noted above, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2007.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor
Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6,
``Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.7,
``Control Room Emergency Filtration/Pressurization System (CREFS)
Actuation Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.8, ``Penetration Room
Filtration (PRF) System Actuation Instrumentation'' to adopt Completion
Time, bypass test time, and Surveillance Requirement (SR) Frequency
changes approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in WCAP-
14333-P-A, Revision 1, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the reactor
protection system (RPS) and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times,''
October 1998 and WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment
of the RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip
Breaker Test and Completion Times,'' March 2003. In addition, the
proposed amendments would revise SR 3.3.1.8 to adopt Surveillance
Frequency changes approved by the NRC in Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS)
Change Traveler 242, Revision 1, ``Increase the time to perform a
channel operational test (COT) on Power Range and Intermediate Range
Instruments.'' Also, the proposed amendments would revise the
Completion Times of limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.3.1,
Condition F from 2 hours to 24 hours consistent with changes approved
by the NRC in Industry/TSTF STS Change Traveler 246, Revision 0, ``RTS
Instrumentation, 3.3.1 Condition F Completion Time.'' Finally, the
proposed amendments would provide for minor editorial changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no
hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS)
and engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS)
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant
design basis. These changes to the Technical Specifications do not
result in a condition where the design, material, or construction
standards that were applicable prior to the change are altered.
The proposed changes will not modify any system interface. The
proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any
assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluation in the updated [final safety analysis report]
FSAR.
The determination that the results of the proposed changes are
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared
for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for
WCAP-15376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002).
Implementation of the proposed changes will not result in a
significant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has been
verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of the
generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC
Safety Evaluation conditions.
The proposed changes to the Completion Times, bypass test times,
and Surveillance Frequencies reduce the potential for inadvertent
reactor trips and spurious ESF [engineered safety feature]
actuations, and therefore, do not increase the probability of any
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not change
the response of the plant to any accidents and do not have a
significant impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals.
The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable, and the proposed
changes will not result in a significant increase in the risk of
plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the impact on
plant safety as measured by the increase in core damage frequency
(CDF) is less than 1.0E-06 per year and the increase in large early
release frequency (LERF) is less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition,
for the Completion Time changes, the incremental conditional core
damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early
release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08,
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in
Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS and
ESFAS will continue to perform their functions with high reliability
as originally assumed, and the increase in risk as measured by
[Delta]CDF, [Delta]LERF, ICCDP, ICLERP risk metrics is within the
acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not
be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions
and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant
operation. No performance requirements will be affected or
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in any hardware
changes or physical alteration to any plant system, nor will there
be any change in the method by which any safety-related plant system
performs its safety function. There will be no setpoint changes or
changes to accident analysis assumptions.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different
[[Page 39057]]
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis
Limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings (LSSS), or limiting conditions for
operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant
systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection
functions. There is no impact on the supporting RTS and ESFAS
setpoint uncertainty calculations or the LSSS trip setpoint safety
margin. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, DNBR
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] limits, FQ,
F[Delta]H, LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] PCT [peak cladding
temperature], peak local power density, or any other margin of
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed
in the Standard Review Plan will continue to be met.
Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity
with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis. The calculated impact on risk is not significant and meets
the acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and
1.177. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human
factors benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test
times, it is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a
reduced potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations
associated with testing.
Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
(a) Reduced testing will result in fewer inadvertent reactor
trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, and less
frequent distraction of operations personnel, without significantly
affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability.
(b) Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in
monitoring and controlling plant operation will be realized. This is
due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift
supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short
Completion Times.
(c) The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers
will provide additional time to complete test and maintenance
activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced
outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion
Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the
logic trains.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for
Contention Preparation
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under
10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be
considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the
Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration,
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The
e-mail 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\ See footnote 6. 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 and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted
as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
b. 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 (a);
c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding,
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention;
d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and
information that shows:
(i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and
use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and
specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a
potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified
expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective
order; and
e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), and a credit
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI.
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically,
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration
at 301-415-
[[Page 39058]]
0320.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in original ink,
accompanied by a check or money order payable in the amount of $191.00
to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual, and
mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security Processing Unit, Mail
Stop T-6E46, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check.
Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request
letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as
described above.
4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten
days of receipt of the written access 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) there is a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training,
education, or experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI
requested in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff
redaction of information from requested documents before their
release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These
procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 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 or SGI contentions by that later
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the
Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within ten (10) days,
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access
determination (and may participate in the development of such a
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by
the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or
explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's
adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect
to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within ten
(10) 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. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
In the same manner, 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 ten (10) days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule''
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that
the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff
determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer
or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI/SGI
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding
officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve
requests for access
[[Page 39059]]
to SUNSI and/or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2008.
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 (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Publication of Federal Register notice of
proposed action and opportunity for hearing,
including order with instructions for access
requests.
10..................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to
SUNSI and/or SGI with information: supporting
the standing of a potential party identified
by name and address; describing the need for
the information in order for the potential
party to participate meaningfully in an
adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that
access should be granted (e.g., showing
technical competence for access to SGI); and,
for SGI, including application fee for
fingerprint/background check.
60..................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of
standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for
intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20..................... 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 (1) need
for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI. (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 makes the
finding of need to know for SGI and likelihood
of standing, NRC staff begins background check
(including fingerprinting for a criminal
history records check), information processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents), and readiness
inspections.
25..................... If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' ``need to
know,'' or 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.
190.................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing,
need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness and
reliability, deadline for NRC staff to file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
determination that the proposed recipient of
SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note:
Before the Office of Administration makes an
adverse determination regarding access, the
proposed recipient must be provided an
opportunity to correct or explain information.
205.................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a
final adverse NRC staff determination either
before the presiding officer or another
designated officer.
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 and/or
SGI consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................. Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI and/
or SGI. 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 or
SGI contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................. (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions
whose development depends upon access to SUNSI
and/or SGI.
A + 60................. (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply
to answers
B...................... Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-15301 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P