[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21164-21171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07957]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0059]


Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, opportunity 
to request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene, order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 9, 2013. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 10, 2013. Any potential party as defined in Sec.  
2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who 
believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 
(SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request document 
access by April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by 
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-0059. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol

[[Page 21165]]

Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0059 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by any the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0059.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0059 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice 
of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the 
Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any 
amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.

[[Page 21166]]

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to

[[Page 21167]]

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the 
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon 
which the filing is based is materially different from information 
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a 
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML130040160.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Fermi 2 Plant Operating License, Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' Section 3.4.10, ``RCS 
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and Section 5.6, ``Reporting 
Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel heatup and 
cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with references to the 
Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) at Fermi 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes modify the TS by replacing references to 
existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and P/T 
limit curves with references to the PTLR. The proposed amendment 
also adopts the NRC approved methodology of the GEH Nuclear Energy 
Licensing Topical Report NEDC-33178P-A, Revision 1, for the 
preparation of the Fermi 2 P/T limit curves. In 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix G, requirements are established to protect the integrity of 
the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary in nuclear power plants. 
Implementing the NRC-approved methodology for calculating P/T limit 
curves and relocating those curves to the PTLR provides an 
equivalent level of assurance that Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 
integrity will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix G.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and 
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered 
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in 
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The change in methodology for calculating P/T limits and the 
relocation of those limits to the PTLR does not alter or involve any 
design basis accident initiators. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 
integrity will continue to be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix G, and the assumed accident performance of plant 
structures, systems and components will not be affected. These 
changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 
no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and 
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different 
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety. The proposed changes do not affect the 
function of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary or its response 
during plant transients. By calculating the P/T limits using NRC-
approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to Reactor 
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity are maintained. The proposed 
changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which protective 
actions are initiated, and the operability requirements for 
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not 
affected.

[[Page 21168]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General 
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: September 28, 2012, as 
supplemented on February 15, 2013. A publicly available version is 
available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML122860201 and ML13051A032, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would authorize an increase in the maximum power level from 
3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3951 MWt. The requested change, 
referred to as an extended power uprate (EPU), represents an increase 
of approximately 12.4 percent above the current licensed thermal power 
level.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below with the NRC staff's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The increase in power level does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will increase the maximum authorized core 
power level for PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station] from the 
current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3514 megawatts thermal 
(MWt) to 3951 MWt. Evaluations and analyses of the nuclear steam 
supply system (NSSS) and balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the power uprate 
were performed in accordance [with] the approaches described in:
     NEDC-33004P-A (commonly called CLTR), Licensing Topical 
Report Constant Pressure Power Uprate, Revision 4,
     NEDC-32424P-A (commonly called ELTR1), Generic 
Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power 
Uprate, and
     NEDC-32523P-A (commonly called ELTR2), Generic 
Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power 
Uprate.
    The evaluations concluded that all plant components, as 
modified, will continue to be capable of performing their design 
function at the proposed uprated core power level.
    The PBAPS licensing and design bases, including PBAPS accident 
analyses, were also evaluated for the effect of the proposed power 
increase. The evaluation concluded that the applicable analysis 
acceptance criteria continue to be met.
    Power level is not an initiator of any transient or accident; it 
is used as an input assumption to equipment design and accident 
analyses. The proposed change does not affect the release paths or 
the frequency of release for any accidents previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Structures, 
systems, and components required to mitigate transients remain 
capable of performing their design functions considering 
radiological consequences associated with the effect of the proposed 
EPU. The source terms used to evaluate the radiological consequences 
were reviewed and were determined to bound [plant] operation at EPU 
power levels. The results of EPU accident evaluations do not exceed 
NRC-approved acceptance limits.
    The spectrum of postulated accidents and transients were 
reviewed and were shown to meet the regulatory criteria to which 
PBAPS is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and core design, 
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other 
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met. 
Continued compliance with the SLMPCR and other SAFDLs is confirmed 
on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by 
the NRC.
    Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were 
evaluated at EPU conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and 
radiation) and found to meet the acceptance criteria for allowable 
stresses. Adequate overpressure margin is maintained with the 
addition of one main steam safety valve.
    Challenges to the containment were also evaluated. Containment 
and its associated cooling system continue to meet applicable 
regulatory requirements. The calculated post Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA) suppression pool temperature decreases due to 
modifications and methodology changes and remain acceptable.
    Radiological releases were evaluated and found to be within the 
regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term.'']
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change 
the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions 
they do not significantly increase the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The non-safety related Replacement Steam Dryer (RSD) must 
function to maintain structural integrity and avoid generation of 
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The RSD analyses demonstrate 
the structural integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at EPU 
conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The increase in power does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power 
level for PBAPS from the current maximum license thermal power of 
3514 MWt to 3951 MWt. An evaluation of the equipment that could be 
affected by the power uprate has been performed. No new accident 
scenarios or equipment failure modes were identified. Due to the 
voluntary elimination of the need for containment accident pressure 
credit, the EPU safety analysis for primary containment response 
credits a modification to the residual heat removal system which 
involves a change in a safety-related equipment lineup. However, 
this modification and new line up does not result in a new type of 
accident. The full spectrum of accident considerations was evaluated 
and no new or different kinds of accidents were identified. For 
PBAPS, the standard evaluation methods outlined in CLTR, ELTR1, and 
ELTR2 were applied to the capability of existing or modified safety-
related plant equipment. No new accidents or event precursors were 
identified.
    All [SSCs] previously required for the mitigation of a transient 
remain capable of fulfilling their intended design functions with 
the addition of one main steam safety valve. The addition of the 
main steam safety valve does not adversely affect the main steam 
system nor create an accident or malfunction of a different kind. 
The proposed increase in power does not adversely affect safety-
related systems or components and does not challenge the performance 
or integrity of any safety-related systems. The change does not 
adversely affect any current system interfaces or create any new 
interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a 
different kind than was previously evaluated. Operating at the 
proposed EPU power level does not create any new accident initiators 
or precursors.
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change 
the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident 
initiators and by maintaining their current functions they do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    The new RSD does not have any new design functions. RSD analyses 
demonstrate

[[Page 21169]]

the RSD will be capable of performing the design function of 
maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, there are no new or 
different kinds of accidents from those previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase in power does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the analyses of the proposed power increase, the 
relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met without a 
significant reduction in margins of safety. The analyses supporting 
EPU have demonstrated that the PBAPS [SSCs] are capable of safely 
performing at EPU conditions with the addition of one main steam 
safety valve. The analyses identified and defined the major input 
parameters to the [NSSS], analyzed NSSS design transients, and 
evaluated the capabilities of the primary containment, NSSS fluid 
systems, NSSS and [BOP], NSSS control systems and NSSS and BOP 
components, as appropriate. Radiological consequences of design 
basis events remain within regulatory limits and are not increased 
significantly. The analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are 
capable of achieving EPU conditions without significant reduction in 
margins of safety, with the modifications discussed in this 
application.
    Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission 
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of 
the power increase.
    Calculated loads on SSCs important to safety have been shown to 
remain within design allowables under EPU conditions for all design 
basis event categories, including with the addition of one main 
steam safety valve. Plant response to transients and accidents do 
not result in exceeding acceptance criteria.
    As appropriate, the evaluations that demonstrate acceptability 
of EPU have been performed using methods that have either been 
reviewed and approved by the NRC staff, or that are in compliance 
with regulatory review guidance and standards established for 
maintaining adequate margins of safety. These evaluations 
demonstrate that there are no significant reductions in the margins 
of safety.
    Maximum power level is one of the inherent inputs that determine 
the safe operating range defined by the accident analyses. The 
Technical Specifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the 
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses. 
The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are conservative 
with respect to the operating conditions defined by the Technical 
Specifications. The engineering reviews performed for the constant 
pressure [EPU] confirm that the accident analyses criteria are met 
at the revised maximum allowable thermal power level of 3951 MWt. 
Therefore, the adequacy of the revised Facility Operating License 
and Technical Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe 
operating range is also confirmed, and the increase in maximum 
allowable power level does not involve a significant decrease in a 
margin of safety.
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of [containment accident pressure] credit do not change 
the design functions within the applicable limits. The systems are 
associated with accident or event response and do not significantly 
affect accident initiators by maintaining their current functions 
and they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident. The proposed Technical Specifications associated with 
these modifications ensure that PBAPS is operated within the bounds 
of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
    The steam dryer is being replaced in order to ensure adequate 
margin to the established structural requirements is maintained. The 
new RSD does not have any new design functions and an analysis was 
performed to confirm it will be capable of maintaining its 
structural integrity. The power ascension test plan will verify that 
the RSD conservatively meets the vibration and stress requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

Detroit Edision, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties
    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General 
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the 
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or 
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this 
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's 
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice;
    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description 
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed 
by the action identified in C.(1); and
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of 
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis 
and specificity for a proffered contention.
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2)

[[Page 21170]]

above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access 
to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain 
instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested 
documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those 
documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the 
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 
\2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or 
inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted 
access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access 
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions 
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely 
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying 
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions 
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for 
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of April 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

ATTACHMENT 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information in this Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Day                             Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................................  Publication of Federal
                                            Register notice of hearing
                                            and opportunity to petition
                                            for leave to intervene,
                                            including order with
                                            instructions for access
                                            requests.
10.......................................  Deadline for submitting
                                            requests for access to
                                            Sensitive Unclassified Non-
                                            Safeguards Information
                                            (SUNSI) with information:
                                            supporting the standing of a
                                            potential party identified
                                            by name and address;
                                            describing the need for the
                                            information in order for the
                                            potential party to
                                            participate meaningfully in
                                            an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.......................................  Deadline for submitting
                                            petition for intervention
                                            containing: (i)
                                            Demonstration of standing;
                                            (ii) all contentions whose
                                            formulation does not require
                                            access to SUNSI (+25 Answers
                                            to petition for
                                            intervention; +7 requestor/
                                            petitioner reply).
20.......................................  The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
                                            Commission (NRC) staff
                                            informs the requestor of the
                                            staff's determination
                                            whether the request for
                                            access provides a reasonable
                                            basis to believe standing
                                            can be established and shows
                                            need for SUNSI. (NRC staff
                                            also informs any party to
                                            the proceeding whose
                                            interest independent of the
                                            proceeding would be harmed
                                            by the release of the
                                            information.) If the NRC
                                            staff makes the finding of
                                            need for SUNSI and
                                            likelihood of standing, NRC
                                            staff begins document
                                            processing (preparation of
                                            redactions or review of
                                            redacted documents).
25.......................................  If NRC staff finds no
                                            ``need'' or no likelihood of
                                            standing, the deadline for
                                            requestor/petitioner to file
                                            a motion seeking a ruling to
                                            reverse the NRC staff's
                                            denial of access; NRC staff
                                            files copy of access
                                            determination with the
                                            presiding officer (or Chief
                                            Administrative Judge or
                                            other designated officer, as
                                            appropriate). If the NRC
                                            staff finds ``need'' for
                                            SUNSI, the deadline for any
                                            party to the proceeding
                                            whose interest independent
                                            of the proceeding would be
                                            harmed by the release of the
                                            information to file a motion
                                            seeking a ruling to reverse
                                            the NRC staff's grant of
                                            access.
30.......................................  Deadline for NRC staff reply
                                            to motions to reverse NRC
                                            staff determination(s).
40.......................................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff
                                            finds standing and need for
                                            SUNSI, deadline for NRC
                                            staff to complete
                                            information processing and
                                            file motion for Protective
                                            Order and draft Non-
                                            Disclosure Affidavit.
                                            Deadline for applicant/
                                            licensee to file Non-
                                            Disclosure Agreement for
                                            SUNSI.
A........................................  If access granted: Issuance
                                            of presiding officer or
                                            other designated officer
                                            decision on motion for
                                            protective order for access
                                            to sensitive information
                                            (including schedule for
                                            providing access and
                                            submission of contentions)
                                            or decision reversing a
                                            final adverse determination
                                            by the NRC staff.
A + 3....................................  Deadline for filing executed
                                            Non-Disclosure Affidavits.
                                            Access provided to SUNSI
                                            consistent with decision
                                            issuing the protective
                                            order.

[[Page 21171]]

 
A + 28...................................  Deadline for submission of
                                            contentions whose
                                            development depends upon
                                            access to SUNSI. However, if
                                            more than 25 days remain
                                            between the petitioner's
                                            receipt of (or access to)
                                            the information and the
                                            deadline for filing all
                                            other contentions (as
                                            established in the notice of
                                            hearing or opportunity for
                                            hearing), the petitioner may
                                            file its SUNSI contentions
                                            by that later deadline.
A + 53...................................  (Contention receipt +25)
                                            Answers to contentions whose
                                            development depends upon
                                            access to SUNSI.
A + 60...................................  (Answer receipt +7)
                                            Petitioner/Intervenor reply
                                            to answers.
>A + 60..................................  Decision on contention
                                            admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-07957 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P