[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26287-26293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10820]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0168]


Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating 
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

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 to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed 
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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).

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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92(c), 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, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, 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

[[Page 26288]]

Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-
492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland.
    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. 
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.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 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, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC 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 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f098959182999e97de949f939b9584b09e8293de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="68000d091a01060f460c070b030d1c28061a0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at (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 
(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 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 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 EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC 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

[[Page 26289]]

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 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 
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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing 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 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 Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377a647f731965524458424554527759455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efa2bca7abc1bd8a9c809a9d8c8aaf819d8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at (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 
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, 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. 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. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    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 electronically 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcccd8ce92ced9cfd3c9cedfd9fcd2cedf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1c081e421e091f03191e0f092c021e0f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 27, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise the Operating License and Technical 
Specifications (TS) to implement an increase of approximately 1.65 
percent in rated thermal power from the current licensed thermal power 
(CLTP) of 3,489 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,546 MWt.
    The proposed changes are based on increased feedwater (FW) flow 
measurement accuracy, which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron 
International (formerly Caldon) CheckPlus<SUP>TM</SUP> Leading Edge 
Flow Meter (LEFM) ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation. LEFM 
instrumentation is currently installed in LaSalle County Station 
(LaSalle), Unit 1 and will be installed in LaSalle, Unit 2 in refueling 
outage L2R13, currently scheduled to complete in March 2011.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed 
uprate conditions included all components and systems that could be 
affected by this change. All systems will function as designed, and 
all performance requirements for these systems have been evaluated 
and were found acceptable.
    The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor 
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and 
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural 
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions. 
Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural 
failure of these components.
    The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their 
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The 
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their 
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their 
intended design functions. Thus, there is no increase in the 
probability of a failure of these components. The safety relief 
valves and containment isolation valves meet design sizing 
requirements at the uprated power level. Because the integrity of 
the plant will not be affected by operation at

[[Page 26290]]

the uprated condition, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has 
concluded that all structures, systems, and components required to 
mitigate a transient remain capable of fulfilling their intended 
functions.
    A majority of the current safety analyses remain applicable, 
since they were performed at power levels that bound operation at a 
core power of 3546 MWt. Other analyses previously performed at the 
current power level have either been evaluated or re-performed for 
the increased power level. The results demonstrate that acceptance 
criteria of the applicable analyses continue to be met at the 
uprated conditions. As such, all applicable accident analyses 
continue to comply with the relevant event acceptance criteria. The 
analyses performed to assess the effects of mass and energy releases 
remain valid. The source terms used to assess radiological 
consequences have been reviewed and determined to bound operation at 
the uprated condition.
    The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS 
instrument function ensure that instruments will function as 
required to initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating 
systems at the point assumed in the applicable safety analysis. 
Surveillance tests are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. As such, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not affected. The added test requirements ensure that 
the systems and components required by the TS are capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their 
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse 
effects on any safety-related system or component and do not 
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
    The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS 
instrument function do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed, nor will there be a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation). The change does not alter assumptions made 
in the safety analysis, but ensures that the instruments behave as 
assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change is consistent 
with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation at the uprated power condition does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Analyses of the primary 
fission product barriers have concluded that relevant design 
criteria remain satisfied, both from the standpoint of the integrity 
of the primary fission product barrier, and from the standpoint of 
compliance with the required acceptance criteria. As appropriate, 
all evaluations have been performed using methods that have either 
been reviewed or approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC), or that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and 
standards.
    The proposed changes to add test requirements to the revised TS 
instrument function establish instrument performance criteria in TS 
that are currently required by plant procedures. The testing methods 
and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components, 
specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives 
approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in 
the plant licensing basis including the updated final safety 
analysis report. There is no impact to safety analysis acceptance 
criteria as described in the plant licensing basis because no change 
is made to the accident analysis assumptions.
    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: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment requests approval for application of leak-before-break (LBB) 
methodology to piping systems attached to the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary. No Technical Specification changes are requested.
    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.
    Overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses. The design of 
the protection systems will be unaffected. The reactor protection 
system and engineered safety feature actuation system will continue 
to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. All 
design, material, and construction standards that were applicable 
prior to the request are maintained.
    For the PINGP, the bounding accident for pipe breaks is a Large 
Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA). Since the application of 
the LBB Analysis verifies the integrity of the piping attached to 
the reactor coolant system, the probability of a previously 
evaluated accident is not increased. The consequences of a LBLOCA 
have been previously evaluated and found to be acceptable. The 
application of the LBB Analysis will cause no change in the dose 
analysis associated with a LBLOCA, and therefore, does not affect 
the consequences of an accident.
    The proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or change 
any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations 
in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All 
systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended 
design function. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any 
safety related systems or components and does not challenge the 
performance or integrity of any safety related system. Further, 
there are no changes in the method by which any safety-related plant 
system performs its safety function. This amendment will not affect 
the normal method of power operation or change any operating 
parameters.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission 
product barriers to perform their design functions during and 
following accident conditions. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. The 
proposed amendment request does not involve a change to any of these 
barriers.

[[Page 26291]]

    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the 
margin of safety that exists in the present PINGP Technical 
Specifications or USAR. The operability requirements of the 
Technical Specifications are consistent with the initial condition 
assumptions of the safety analyses. The proposed change does not 
affect any Technical Specification Action statement requirements.
    This proposed amendment uses LBB technology combined with 
leakage monitoring to show that it is acceptable to exclude the 
dynamic effects associated with postulated pipe ruptures from the 
licensing basis for the systems evaluated that are attached to the 
[reactor coolant system] RCS. The enclosed analysis demonstrates 
that the LBB margins discussed in NUREG-1061 Volume 3 are satisfied.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: December 28, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would increase the licensed rated thermal power (RTP) as a 
result of a measurement uncertainly recapture (MUR) power uprate (PU). 
The proposed change would increase the licensed RTP level by 1.64 
percent from 1650 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1677 MWt for both units. 
The request is based on reduced uncertainty in the RTP measurement 
achieved by installation of a Caldon Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) 
Checkplus<SUP>TM</SUP> System used to measure feedwater flow and 
temperature.
    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.
    There are no changes as a result of the MUR PU to the design or 
operation of the plant that could affect system, component, or 
accident mitigative functions. All systems and components will 
function as designed and the applicable performance requirements 
have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
    The reduction in power measurement uncertainty allows for the 
accident and transient safety analyses to continue to be used 
without modification. This is because the preceding safety analyses 
were performed or evaluated at either 102 percent of 1650 MWt or 
higher. Those accidents or transients that were reanalyzed for MUR 
concluded that the existing analyses remain bounding and the 
conclusions presented in the Updated Safety Analysis Report remain 
valid.
    Analyses at these power levels support a core power level of 
1677 MWt with a measurement uncertainty of 0.36 percent. 
Radiological consequences were performed at 102 percent of 1650 MWt 
(or higher) and continue to be bounding.
    The primary loop components were evaluated for the effects of 
MUR PU conditions. These analyses also demonstrate the components 
will continue to perform their intended design functions.
    All of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) systems will 
continue to perform their intended design functions during normal 
and accident conditions. The auxiliary systems and components 
continue to comply with the applicable structural limits and will 
continue to perform their intended design functions. The NSSS/
Balance of Plant interface systems were evaluated and will continue 
to perform their intended design functions. Plant electrical 
equipment was also evaluated and will continue to perform within 
their design ratings.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does 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.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The LEFM 
has been analyzed, and system failures will not adversely affect any 
safety-related system or any structures, systems or components 
required for transient mitigation. Structures, systems and 
components previously required for mitigation of an event remain 
capable of fulfilling their intended function at the uprated power 
level. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-
related systems or components and does not challenge the performance 
or integrity of any safety-related system.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current system 
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an 
accident or malfunction of a different kind than previously 
evaluated. Operating at the proposed RTP does not create any new 
accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded 
by the current accident analyses of record or recent evaluations 
demonstrating that applicable criteria are still met with the 
proposed changes.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does 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.
    Operation at the 1677 MWt core power does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The current accident 
analyses have been previously performed with a 2-percent power 
measurement uncertainty or at a core power bounding the 1677 MWt. 
System and component analyses have been completed at operating 
conditions that envelop the MUR uprated operating conditions. 
Analyses of the primary fission product barriers at uprated core 
powers have concluded that all relevant plant operating conditions 
remain satisfied in regard to integrity and compliance with the 
regulatory acceptance criteria. Evaluations have been reviewed and 
approved by the NRC or are in compliance with applicable regulatory 
review guidance and standards.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in the 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    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

[[Page 26292]]

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 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 e-mail 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9e1ccc8dbc0c7ce87edc6cac2ccdde9c7dbca87cec6df">[email protected]</a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afe0e8ecc2cec6c3cccac1dbcaddefc1ddcc81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d020a0e202c24212e282339283f0d233f2e632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>, 
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);
    (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) 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 
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after 
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, 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 3rd day of May 2010.

    For the 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.

[[Page 26293]]

 
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....................  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 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 NRC staff finds ``need'' for
                         SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
                         proceeding whose interest independent of the
                         proceeding would be harmed by the release of
                         the information to file a motion seeking a
                         ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                         access.
30....................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                         reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                         need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                         complete information processing and file motion
                         for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure
                         Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to
                         file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A.....................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer
                         or other designated officer decision on motion
                         for protective order for access to sensitive
                         information (including schedule for providing
                         access and submission of contentions) or
                         decision reversing a final adverse
                         determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
                         Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent
                         with decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                         development depends upon access to SUNSI.
                         However, if more than 25 days remain between
                         the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
                         information and the deadline for filing all
                         other contentions (as established in the notice
                         of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
                         petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
                         that later deadline.
A + 53................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions
                         whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply
                         to answers.
>A + 60...............  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-10820 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>