[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32509-32516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13617]



=======================================================================

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



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION



[NRC-2010-0190]




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) 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.



[[Page 32510]]



    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 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#afc7caceddc6c1c881cbc0ccc4cadbefc1ddcc81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9818c889b80878ec78d868a828c9da9879b8ac78e869f">[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-



[[Page 32511]]



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 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#367b657e721864534559434455537658445518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9a4baa1adc7bb8c9a869c9b8a8ca9879b8ac78e869f">[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#9eeefaecb0ecfbedf1ebecfdfbdef0ecfdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4948096ca9681978b91968781a48a9687ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>.



Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 

Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 

Carolina



    Date of amendment request: March 23, 2010.

    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. The proposed 

amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.6 to add 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved topical report 

(TR) EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA [Loss-of-

Coolant Accident] Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' to the 

Core Operating Limits Report methodologies list. This change will allow 

the use of the thermal-hydraulic computer analysis code S-RELAP5 for 

the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 realistic large-

break LOCA in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 safety 

analyses. TR EMF-2103(P)(A), Revision 0, was approved by the NRC on 

April 9, 2003, for the application of the S-RELAP5 thermal-hydraulic 

analysis computer code to FSAR Chapter 15 realistic large-break LOCA.



[[Page 32512]]



    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 topical report has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for 

use in determining core operating limits and for evaluation of large 

break loss-of-coolant accidents. The core operating limits to be 

developed using the new methodologies for HNP [Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1] will be established in accordance with 

the applicable limitations as documented in the NRC Safety 

Evaluation Report. In the April 9, 2003, NRC SE [safety evaluation], 

the NRC concluded that the S-RELAP5 RLBLOCA [realistic large-break 

loss-of-coolant accident] methodology is acceptable for referencing 

in licensing applications in accordance with the stated limitations.

    The proposed change enables the use of new methodology to re-

analyze a large break loss-of-coolant accident. It does not, by 

itself, impact the current design bases. Revised analysis may either 

result in continued conformance with design bases or may change the 

design bases. If design basis changes result from a revised 

analysis, the specific design changes will be evaluated in 

accordance with HNP design change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59.

    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any 

plant structure, system, or component. Therefore, the probability of 

occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not significantly 

increased.

    The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent 

on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of 

the fission product barriers during the analyzed accident, the 

availability and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to 

operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at 

which these actions are initiated.

    The proposed methodologies will ensure that the plant continues 

to meet applicable design and safety analyses acceptance criteria. 

The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment 

used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. As a 

result, no analysis assumptions are impacted and there are no 

adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite 

dose as a result of an accident. The proposed change does not affect 

setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. The 

proposed change ensures that plant structures, systems, and 

components are maintained consistent with the safety analysis and 

licensing bases.

    Therefore, this amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed 

accident.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 

plant systems, structures, or components. No new or different 

equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being 

operated in a different manner. There is no change to the parameters 

within which the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints that 

initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a result, no new 

failure modes are being introduced.

    Therefore, the proposed change will 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.

    There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the 

incorporation of this new topical report into the Technical 

Specifications. If design basis changes result from a revised 

analysis that uses these new methodologies, the specific design 

changes will be evaluated in accordance with HNP design change 

procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Any potential reduction in the margin 

of safety would be evaluated for that specific design change.

    Therefore, this amendment 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 

II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 

Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus



Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania



    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2010.

    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 

changes revise the operating license and technical specifications (TSs) 

to implement an increase of approximately 1.65% in rated thermal power 

from the current licensed thermal power of 3458 megawatts thermal (MWt) 

to 3515 MWt. The proposed changes are based on increased feedwater flow 

measurement accuracy, which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron 

International (formerly Caldon) CheckPIus Leading Edge Flow Meter 

ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation. The proposed changes also 

modify certain TS setpoints and channel surveillance requirements 

associated with average power range monitor simulated thermal power. 

Additionally, the proposed changes include a modification to the 

standby liquid control system (SLCS), that allows operators to select 

two pumps instead of three for the automatic start function on an 

anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) signal.

    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 Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) 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 proposed changes [other than those associated with the SLCS] 

do not affect system design or operation and thus do not create any 

new accident initiators or increase the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. All accident mitigation systems will function 

as designed, and all performance requirements for these systems have 

been evaluated and were found acceptable. The SLCS performance 

requirements will be met with completion of the SLCS modification 

described in the proposed changes.

    The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor 

internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and 

recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural 

limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions. 

Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural 

failure of these components.

    The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their 

intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The 

balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their 

applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their 

intended design functions. Thus, there is no increase in the 

probability of a failure of these components. The safety relief 

valves and containment isolation valves meet design sizing 

requirements at the uprated power level. Because the integrity of 

the plant will not be affected by operation at the uprated 

condition, [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 3515 MWt. Other analyses previously performed at the 

current power level have either been



[[Page 32513]]



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. The anticipated 

transient without scram event criteria will be met with completion 

of the SLCS modification described in the proposed changes. 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 add test requirements to TS instrument 

functions [that are changed by this license amendment and are] 

related to those variables that have a significant safety function 

to 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 

significantly increased. 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.

    The SLCS modification does not affect the probability of an 

accident, as the control system is not an initiator in any accident. 

The modification maintains all of the assumptions in the analyses of 

events for which the system is designed. Thus, the response to these 

events is unaffected.

    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 [that create a new or different 

accident than previously evaluated] 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 regarding instrument testing 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.

    The SLCS system is not an initiator of any accidents.

    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, or 

that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and 

standards.

    The proposed changes add test requirements that 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. The SLCS modification maintains all of the 

assumptions in the analyses of events for which the system is 

designed. Thus, the response to these events is unaffected.

    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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 

General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.



Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey



    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2010.

    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 

amendment would revise Technical Specifications to allow temporary 

changes to the secondary containment boundary during shutdown 

conditions. Specifically, the proposed change would allow the Reactor 

Building secondary containment boundary associated with the Trunnion 

Room to be relocated from the Trunnion Room outer wall and door to the 

Reactor Building inner walls and penetrations located inside the 

Trunnion Room.

    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 changes do not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated.]

    The proposed changes do not involve any modifications to any 

structures, components, or systems that would affect the probability 

of an accident previously evaluated in the Oyster Creek Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed 

changes do not significantly increase the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated.

    The Secondary Containment structure and the [Standby Gas 

Treatment System (SGTS)], and any component thereof, are not 

accident initiators. No other accident initiator is affected by the 

proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated.

    There are no changes or modifications in the function or 

operation of the SGTS being proposed to temporarily relocate the 

Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown 

conditions. Therefore, changing the Secondary Containment boundary 

for the Trunnion Room will not result in any change to the frequency 

of an accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.

    The malfunction of any portion of Secondary Containment, 

including the SGTS, would have the same results and consequences 

regardless of whether the Secondary Containment boundary is 

maintained at the Trunnion Room door or inside the Trunnion Room.

    Relocating the Secondary Containment boundary during Cold 

Shutdown conditions will help to improve Secondary Containment 

integrity. Secondary Containment integrity is maintained by the 

single Trunnion Room door. The relocated Secondary Containment 

boundary established inside the Trunnion Room will be more 

substantial since the penetrations will be blocked and sealed. Less 

air will be drawn into the Reactor Building during SGTS operation 

and a larger negative pressure will be maintained in the Reactor 

Building. As a result, better Secondary Containment response would 

be expected during any postulated accidents or transients in this 

configuration.

    Since the proposed change to relocate the Secondary Containment 

boundary will only be implemented when the plant is in a Cold 

Shutdown condition, when a pipe break



[[Page 32514]]



accident is not credible and isolation of the Main Steam and 

Feedwater Supply lines will be maintained by isolation of either the 

inboard or outboard isolation valves or other engineered isolation 

mechanisms/devices within Secondary Containment; any release from 

the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV or any attached system will be 

contained in the Reactor Building. Once the RPV head is removed, any 

gaseous release due to fuel damage from any accident or transient 

would be drawn into the Reactor Building and through the SGTS as 

designed. The drop of a fuel bundle and postulated release of 

fission product gases would be drawn into the Reactor Building and 

through the SGTS as designed. Because the Secondary Containment will 

be maintained under negative pressure (i.e., greater than -0.25'' 

water column) when required and the penetrations inside the Trunnion 

Room will be blocked and sealed, all releases in the Reactor 

Building, including in the RPV and Spent Fuel Pool, will be 

contained within Secondary Containment and will not be released into 

the Trunnion Room. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated in the UFSAR.

    Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes 

do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. [The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.]

    The proposed changes will not create the possibility for a new 

or different type of accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve any modifications to 

any structure, systems, or components that would create the 

possibility of an accident. The Secondary Containment, SGTS[,] and 

any related equipment important to safety will continue to operate 

as designed. Component integrity is not challenged. The changes do 

not result in more adverse conditions or result in any increase in 

the challenges to safety systems. The systems affected by the 

changes are used to mitigate the consequences of an accident that 

would have already occurred. The proposed changes do not allow 

reduction of the mitigative function of these systems. Therefore, 

the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident.

    This temporary configuration change removes the Trunnion Room 

outer wall and door as part of Secondary Containment during Cold 

Shutdown and allows the Technical Specifications (TS) required 

administrative controls for the Trunnion Room door to be relaxed. 

Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained in accordance 

with applicable TS requirements and any releases from the RPV or its 

attached systems will be contained within Secondary Containment and 

will not be released into the Trunnion Room. All releases within 

Secondary Containment will be processed by the SGTS. This activity 

does not change the design, function[,] or operation of any 

structure, system, or component important to safety other than 

removing the Trunnion Room as part of the Secondary Containment 

boundary. Therefore, the proposed activity does not create a 

possibility for an accident of a different type.

    The Secondary Containment, with the exception of the SGTS, is a 

passive system that cannot and will not result in any malfunction of 

a structure, system, or component important to safety. No change to 

the function or operation of the SGTS is being considered as a 

result of the proposed change to temporarily relocate the Trunnion 

Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions. 

Changing the Secondary Containment boundary for the Trunnion Room 

will not result in any malfunction to a structure, system, or 

component important to safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do 

not create a possibility for a malfunction of a structure, system, 

or component important to safety with a different result than any 

previously evaluated in the UFSAR.

    Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed changes 

do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 

from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 

in the margin of safety.]

    The Secondary Containment provides protection to the public by 

containing any radioactive releases that result from transients or 

accidents contained in the [Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station] 

design bases. With the exception of the SGTS, the Secondary 

Containment is a passive system that cannot and will not result in 

any accident or transient evaluated in the UFSAR. No change to the 

function or operation of the SGTS is being proposed when relocating 

the Trunnion Room Secondary Containment boundary during Cold 

Shutdown conditions.

    The proposed changes to relocate the Trunnion Room Secondary 

Containment boundary from the outer wall and door, to the inner 

walls and penetrations inside the Trunnion Room during Cold Shutdown 

conditions will not result in any change to the frequency of an 

accident or transient previously evaluated in the UFSAR.

    TS administrative controls will be instituted in support of 

relocating the Secondary Containment boundary and TS required 

surveillance testing will be completed to ensure that Secondary 

Containment integrity can be maintained in the modified 

configuration within design parameters.

    Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained as required, 

and any release from the RPV or any attached system will be 

contained in the Reactor Building. The Secondary Containment and 

SGTS will continue to function as designed in the event of an 

accident or transient that requires the Secondary Containment to act 

as a fission product barrier to prevent a radioactive release.

    The proposed changes do not adversely impact the operation of 

any plant structure, system, or component important to safety. The 

Secondary Containment and the SGTS will continue to function and 

respond as designed. The proposed changes do not result in a 

departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in 

establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.

    Therefore, based on the above information, 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, Associate General 

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.



Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-

Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation



Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, 

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina



Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania



Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey



    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 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



[[Page 32515]]



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="59113c382b30373e771d363a323c2d19372b3a773e362f">[email protected]</a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcb3bbbf919d95909f999288998ebc928e9fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="014e46426c60686d62646f756473416f73622f666e77">[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 1st day of June 2010.



    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).



[[Page 32516]]



 

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. 2010-13617 Filed 6-7-10; 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>