81 FR 68467 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 192 (October 4, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 192 (October 4, 2016)
| Page Range | 68467-68474 | |
| FR Document | 2016-23210 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 68467-68474] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-23210] [[Page 68467]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0194] Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Columbia Generating Station; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation. DATES: Comments must be filed by November 3, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 5, 2016. Any potential party as defined in Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by October 14, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0194. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0194, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0194. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0194, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Background Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI. III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be [[Page 68468]] considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal Register. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition 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 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 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 petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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 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 petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by December 5, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and [[Page 68469]] conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, 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 (hereinafter ``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 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 NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672- 7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a petition will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A336. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Technical [[Page 68470]] Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, to support the implementation of next generation fuel (NGF). In addition to the license amendment request (LAR), APS is requesting an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems [(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors,'' and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod cladding material. The proposed change will allow for the implementation of NGF including the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material. The NGF assemblies contain advanced features to enhance fuel reliability, thermal performance, and fuel cycle economics. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. The NRC approved topical report CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A and Addendum 2-A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and, therefore, will not increase the consequences of an accident. Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation for these topical reports, and their various supplements and revisions will be met as described in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure to APS's letter dated July 1, 2016]. Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical report CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg] thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a new or different type of accident. Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation for these topical reports, and their various supplements and revisions as identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure to APS's letter dated July 1, 2016], will be met as described in Section 3.2. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating, transient, and accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, where the slight difference in Optimized ZIRLOTM material properties relative to standard ZIRLO[supreg] could have some impact on the overall accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using Optimized ZIRLOTM properties were performed. These LOCA analyses demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are satisfied when Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is implemented. Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical methods. The proposed changes do not amend the cycle specific parameter limits located in the PVNGS unit specific [core operating limits report (COLR)] from the values presently required by the TS. The individual specifications continue to require operation of the plant within the bounds of the limits specified in PVNGS unit specific COLR. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated August 18, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and ML16231A511. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendment would revise the operating license and technical specifications to implement an increase in rated thermal power from the current licensed thermal power of 3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a measurement uncertainty recapture thermal power of 3544 MWt. 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? [[Page 68471]] Response: No. The proposed change will increase the Columbia Generating Station rated thermal power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt. The reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed uprated power conditions included all structures, systems and components that would be affected by the proposed changes. The reviews and evaluations determined that these structures, systems, and components are capable of performing their design function at the proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All accident mitigation systems will function as designed, and all performance requirements for these systems have been evaluated and were found acceptable. Thus, the proposed changes do not create any new accident initiators or increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. 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, Energy Northwest has concluded that all structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions. The current safety analyses remain applicable, since they were performed at power levels that bound operation at a core power of 3544 MWt. 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. Power level is an input assumption to equipment design and accident analyses, but it is not a transient or accident initiator. Accident initiators are not affected by power uprate, and plant safety barrier challenges are not created by the proposed changes. 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. 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. All structures, systems 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. Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does not create any new accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded by the current accident analysis of record or recent evaluations demonstrate that applicable criteria are still met with the proposed changes. 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. The margins of safety associated with the power uprate are those pertaining to core thermal power. 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. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16190A248. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 implementation schedule for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, this change would extend the PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the PSEG CSP implementation schedule and revise the Facility Operating Licenses. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No The implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the [[Page 68472]] milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplement by letter dated August 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16188A105 and ML16221A034, respectively. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendment would revise the implementation date for Milestone No. 8 of the Cyber Security Plan. 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 proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change is a change to the completion date of Implementation Milestone 8, that in itself does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. This proposed change to modify the completion date of Implementation Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. This change also does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non- Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI. B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.\1\ [[Page 68473]] The request must include the following information: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's ``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice; (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention. D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether: (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI. E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the receipt of the written access request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is provided access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is provided 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. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309. G. Review of Denials of Access. (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial. (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) an officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues. H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed 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\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012) 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 proposed 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 19th day of September, 2016. 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; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/ requestor reply). 20........................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). [[Page 68474]] 25........................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30........................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40........................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non- Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. A............................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A + 3........................ Deadline for filing executed Non- Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A + 28....................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of 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. 2016-23210 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices 68467
NUCLEAR REGULATORY • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, submissions at http://
COMMISSION Office of Administration, Mail Stop: www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions into ADAMS.
[NRC–2016–0194] Regulatory Commission, Washington, The NRC does not routinely edit
DC 20555–0001. comment submissions to remove
Applications and Amendments to For additional direction on obtaining identifying or contact information.
Facility Operating Licenses and information and submitting comments, If you are requesting or aggregating
Combined Licenses Involving see ‘‘Obtaining Information and comments from other persons for
Proposed No Significant Hazards Submitting Comments’’ in the submission to the NRC, then you should
Considerations and Containing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of inform those persons not to include
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards this document. identifying or contact information that
Information and Order Imposing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: they do not want to be publicly
Procedures for Access to Sensitive Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear disclosed in their comment submission.
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Your request should state that the NRC
Information Regulatory Commission, Washington, does not routinely edit comment
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– submissions to remove such information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 5411, email: Shirley.rohrer@nrc.gov. before making the comment
Commission. submissions available to the public or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ACTION: License amendment request; entering the comment into ADAMS.
notice of opportunity to comment, I. Obtaining Information and
II. Background
request a hearing, and petition for leave Submitting Comments
to intervene; order imposing Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the
A. Obtaining Information Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
procedures.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– (the Act), the NRC is publishing this
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0194, facility name, unit number(s), notice. The Act requires the
Commission (NRC) received and is plant docket number, application date, Commission to publish notice of any
considering approval of four and subject when contacting the NRC amendments issued, or proposed to be
amendment requests. The amendment about the availability of information for issued and grants the Commission the
requests are for Palo Verde Nuclear this action. You may obtain publicly- authority to issue and make
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; available information related to this immediately effective any amendment
Columbia Generating Station; Hope action by any of the following methods: to an operating license or combined
Creek Generating Station and Salem • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to license, as applicable, upon a
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 http://www.regulations.gov and search determination by the Commission that
and 2; and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear for Docket ID NRC–2016–0194. such amendment involves no significant
Station, Unit No. 1. For each • NRC’s Agencywide Documents hazards consideration, notwithstanding
amendment request, the NRC proposes Access and Management System the pendency before the Commission of
to determine that they involve no (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- a request for a hearing from any person.
significant hazards consideration. available documents online in the This notice includes notices of
Because each amendment request ADAMS Public Documents collection at amendments containing SUNSI.
contains sensitive unclassified non- http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
safeguards information (SUNSI) an adams.html. To begin the search, select
of Amendments to Facility Operating
order imposes procedures to obtain ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
access to SUNSI for contention select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Proposed No Significant Hazards
preparation. Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
Consideration Determination, and
please contact the NRC’s Public
DATES: Comments must be filed by Opportunity for a Hearing
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
November 3, 2016. A request for a 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by The Commission has made a
hearing must be filed by December 5, email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The proposed determination that the
2016. Any potential party as defined in ADAMS accession number for each following amendment requests involve
§ 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal document referenced (if it is available in no significant hazards consideration.
Regulations (10 CFR), who believes ADAMS) is provided the first time that Under the Commission’s regulations in
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond it is mentioned in this document. 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
to this notice must request document • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and of the facility in accordance with the
access by October 14, 2016. purchase copies of public documents at proposed amendment would not (1)
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One involve a significant increase in the
by any of the following methods (unless White Flint North, 11555 Rockville probability or consequences of an
this document describes a different Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. accident previously evaluated, or (2)
method for submitting comments on a create the possibility of a new or
specific subject): B. Submitting Comments different kind of accident from any
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– accident previously evaluated, or (3)
http://www.regulations.gov and search 0194, facility name, unit number(s), involve a significant reduction in a
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0194. Address plant docket number, application date, margin of safety. The basis for this
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
questions about NRC dockets to Carol and subject in your comment proposed determination for each
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; submission. amendment request is shown below.
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For The NRC cautions you not to include The Commission is seeking public
technical questions, contact the identifying or contact information that comments on this proposed
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER you do not want to be publicly determination. Any comments received
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this disclosed in your comment submission. within 30 days after the date of
document. The NRC will post all comment publication of this notice will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Oct 03, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68659/page/1.svg)
![68470 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, increase in the probability or consequences criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are satisfied when
2, and 3, to support the implementation of an accident previously evaluated. Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is
of next generation fuel (NGF). In 2. Does the proposed amendment create implemented.
the possibility of a new or different kind of Therefore, the proposed change to TS
addition to the license amendment
accident from any accident previously Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant
request (LAR), APS is requesting an evaluated? reduction in a margin of safety.
exemption from certain requirements of Response: No. The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5
10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria for The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 have no impact on any plant configuration or
Emergency Core Cooling Systems adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding system performance. The proposed changes
[(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power material as an acceptable material consistent to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-
Reactors,’’ and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, with the permanent exemption request approved topical reports, as described, to the
‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ to allow the presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. list of referenced core operating analytical
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will methods. The proposed changes do not
use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod
not result in changes in the operation or amend the cycle specific parameter limits
cladding material. configuration of the facility. Topical report located in the PVNGS unit specific [core
The proposed change will allow for CENPD–404–P–A demonstrated that the operating limits report (COLR)] from the
the implementation of NGF including material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM values presently required by the TS. The
the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod are similar to those of standard ZIRLO®. individual specifications continue to require
cladding material. The NGF assemblies Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod operation of the plant within the bounds of
contain advanced features to enhance cladding will perform similarly to those the limits specified in PVNGS unit specific
fabricated from standard ZIRLO® thus COLR.
fuel reliability, thermal performance, Therefore, the proposed change does not
precluding the possibility of the fuel
and fuel cycle economics. becoming an accident initiator and causing a involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Basis for proposed no significant new or different type of accident. safety.
hazards consideration determination: Therefore, the proposed change to TS
The NRC staff has reviewed the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Section 4.2.1 does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
licensee has provided its analysis of the review, it appears that the three
issue of no significant hazards any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
consideration, which is presented satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
have no impact on any plant configuration or
below: system performance. Changes to the proposes to determine that the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve calculated core operating limits may only be amendment request involves no
a significant increase in the probability or made using NRC approved methodologies, significant hazards consideration.
consequences of an accident previously must be consistent with all applicable safety Attorney for licensee: Michael G.
evaluated? analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Response: No. CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O.
The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved
adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding topical reports, as described, to the list of Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix,
material as an acceptable material consistent referenced core operating analytical methods. Arizona 85072–2034.
with the permanent exemption request APS has demonstrated that the limitations NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Pascarelli.
The NRC approved topical report CENPD– Evaluation for these topical reports, and their
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
404–P–A, Addendum 1–A and Addendum 2– various supplements and revisions as
A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure Columbia Generating Station, Benton
demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has to APS’s letter dated July 1, 2016], will be County, Washington
essentially the same properties as currently met as described in Section 3.2. Date of amendment request: June 28,
licensed ZIRLO®. The fuel cladding itself is Therefore, the proposed change does not 2016, as supplemented by letter dated
not an accident initiator and does not affect create the possibility of a new or different August 18, 2016. Publicly-available
accident probability. Use of Optimized kind of accident from any previously
ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to evaluated.
versions are in ADAMS under
meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and, 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and
therefore, will not increase the consequences a significant reduction in a margin of safety? ML16231A511.
of an accident. Response: No. Description of amendment request:
Therefore, the proposed change to TS The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 This amendment request contains
Section 4.2.1 does not involve a significant adds Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
increase in the probability or consequences material as an acceptable material consistent information (SUNSI). The amendment
of an accident previously evaluated. with the permanent exemption request would revise the operating license and
The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 presented in Section 7 of [the] LAR. technical specifications to implement an
have no impact on any plant configuration or The proposed change will not involve a increase in rated thermal power from
system performance. Changes to the significant reduction in the margin of safety
calculated core operating limits may only be because it has been demonstrated that the
the current licensed thermal power of
made using NRC approved methodologies, material properties of the Optimized 3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a
must be consistent with all applicable safety ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from measurement uncertainty recapture
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 those of standard ZIRLO®. Optimized thermal power of 3544 MWt.
CFR 50.59 process. The proposed changes to ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to Basis for proposed no significant
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved standard ZIRLO® for all normal operating, hazards consideration determination:
topical reports, as described, to the list of transient, and accident scenarios, including As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
referenced core operating analytical methods. both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and licensee has provided its analysis of the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
APS has demonstrated that the limitations non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, issue of no significant hazards
and conditions contained in the NRC Safety where the slight difference in Optimized consideration, which is presented
Evaluation for these topical reports, and their ZIRLOTM material properties relative to
various supplements and revisions will be standard ZIRLO® could have some impact on
below:
met as described in Attachment 5 to [the the overall accident scenario, plant-specific 1. Does the proposed change involve a
enclosure to APS’s letter dated July 1, 2016]. LOCA analyses using Optimized ZIRLOTM significant increase in the probability or
Therefore, the proposed change to TS properties were performed. These LOCA consequences of an accident previously
Section 5.6.5 does not involve a significant analyses demonstrate that the acceptance evaluated?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Oct 03, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68659/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices 68471
Response: No. Response: No. Description of amendment request:
The proposed change will increase the No new accident scenarios, failure This amendment request contains
Columbia Generating Station rated thermal mechanisms, or limiting single failures are sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt. introduced as a result of the proposed
The reviews and evaluations performed to changes. The proposed changes do not
information (SUNSI). The amendments
support the proposed uprated power adversely affect any current system interfaces would revise the Cyber Security Plan
conditions included all structures, systems or create any new interfaces that could result (CSP) Milestone 8 implementation
and components that would be affected by in an accident or malfunction of a different schedule for Hope Creek Generating
the proposed changes. The reviews and kind than previously evaluated. All Station and Salem Nuclear Generating
evaluations determined that these structures, structures, systems and components Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically,
systems, and components are capable of previously required for the mitigation of a this change would extend the PSEG
performing their design function at the transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed
Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8
proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All
accident mitigation systems will function as changes have no adverse effects on any full implementation date as set forth in
designed, and all performance requirements safety-related system or component and do the PSEG CSP implementation schedule
for these systems have been evaluated and not challenge the performance or integrity of and revise the Facility Operating
were found acceptable. any safety-related system. Licenses.
Thus, the proposed changes do not create Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does Basis for proposed no significant
any new accident initiators or increase the not create any new accident initiators or hazards consideration determination:
probability of an accident previously precursors. Credible malfunctions are As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
evaluated. bounded by the current accident analysis of
record or recent evaluations demonstrate that
licensee has provided its analysis of the
The primary loop components (e.g., reactor
vessel, reactor internals, control rod drive applicable criteria are still met with the issue of no significant hazards
housings, piping and supports, and proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed consideration, which is presented
recirculation pumps) remain within their changes do not create the possibility of a new below:
applicable structural limits and will continue or different kind of accident from any 1. Do the proposed changes involve a
to perform their intended design functions. accident previously evaluated. significant increase in the probability or
Thus, there is no increase in the 3. Does the proposed change involve a consequences of an accident previously
probability of a structural failure of these significant reduction in a margin of safety? evaluated?
components. Response: No. Response: No
The nuclear steam supply systems will The margins of safety associated with the The proposed change to the CSP
continue to perform their intended design power uprate are those pertaining to core
Implementation Schedule is administrative
functions during normal and accident thermal power. Operation at the uprated
in nature. This change does not alter accident
conditions. The balance of plant systems and power condition does not involve a
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
components continue to meet their significant reduction in a margin of safety.
affect the function of plant systems or the
applicable structural limits and will continue Analyses of the primary fission product
to perform their intended design functions. manner in which systems are operated,
barriers have concluded that relevant design
Thus, there is no increase in the maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
criteria remain satisfied, both from the
probability of a failure of these components. The proposed change does not require any
standpoint of the integrity of the primary
The safety relief valves and containment plant modifications which affect the
fission product barrier, and from the
isolation valves meet design sizing standpoint of compliance with the required performance capability of the structures,
requirements at the uprated power level. acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all systems, and components relied upon to
Because the integrity of the plant will not be evaluations have been performed using mitigate the consequences of postulated
affected by operation at the uprated methods that have either been reviewed or accidents and has no impact on the
condition, Energy Northwest has concluded approved by the Nuclear Regulatory probability or consequences of an accident
that all structures, systems, and components Commission, or that are in compliance with previously evaluated.
required to mitigate a transient remain regulatory review guidance and standards. Therefore, the proposed change does not
capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
The current safety analyses remain involve a significant reduction in a margin of probability or consequences of an accident
applicable, since they were performed at safety. previously evaluated.
power levels that bound operation at a core 2. Do the proposed changes create the
power of 3544 MWt. The results demonstrate The NRC staff has reviewed the possibility of a new or different kind of
that acceptance criteria of the applicable licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident from any accident previously
analyses continue to be met at the uprated review, it appears that the three evaluated?
conditions. As such, all applicable accident standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Response: No
analyses continue to comply with the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The implementation of the PSEG CSP does
relevant event acceptance criteria. The proposes to determine that the not introduce new equipment that could
analyses performed to assess the effects of create a new or different kind of accident,
amendment request involves no
mass and energy releases remain valid. The and no new equipment failure modes are
significant hazards consideration. created. No new accident scenarios, failure
source terms used to assess radiological
Attorney for licensee: William A. mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
consequences have been reviewed and
determined to bound operation at the uprated Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K introduced as a result of this proposed
condition. Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– amendment.
Power level is an input assumption to 3817. Therefore, the proposed change does not
equipment design and accident analyses, but NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. create the possibility of a new or different
it is not a transient or accident initiator. Pascarelli. kind of accident from any previously
Accident initiators are not affected by power evaluated.
uprate, and plant safety barrier challenges are PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354, 3. Do the proposed changes involve a
not created by the proposed changes. 50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek significant reduction in a margin of safety?
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Response: No
involve a significant increase in the Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Plant safety margins are established
probability or consequences of an accident Salem County, New Jersey through limiting conditions for operation,
previously evaluated. limiting safety system settings, and safety
2. Does the proposed change create the Date of amendment request: June 30, limits specified in the technical
possibility of a new or different kind of 2016. A publicly-available version is in specifications. The proposed change to the
accident from any accident previously ADAMS under Accession No. CSP Implementation Schedule is
evaluated? ML16190A248. administrative in nature. In addition, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Oct 03, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68659/page/5.svg)
![68474 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / Notices
Day Event/activity
25 ...................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
30 ...................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40 ...................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protec-
tive 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. 2016–23210 Filed 10–3–16; 8:45 am] Thirty-five hard copies of each Dated: September 28, 2016.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P presentation or handout should be John Lai,
provided to the DFO thirty minutes Acting Chief, Technical Support Branch,
before the meeting. In addition, one Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY electronic copy of each presentation [FR Doc. 2016–23954 Filed 10–3–16; 8:45 am]
COMMISSION should be emailed to the DFO one day BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
before the meeting. If an electronic copy
Advisory Committee on Reactor cannot be provided within this
Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the timeframe, presenters should provide
ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
the DFO with a CD containing each
Protection and Nuclear Materials; presentation at least thirty minutes [Docket Nos. MC2016–207 and CP2016–296,
Notice of Meeting MC2016–208 and CP2016–297, MC2016–209
before the meeting. Electronic
and CP2016–298, MC2016–210 and CP2016–
The ACRS Subcommittee on recordings will be permitted only 299]
Radiation Protection and Nuclear during those portions of the meeting
Materials will hold a meeting on that are open to the public. Detailed New Postal Products
October 18, 2016, Room T–2B3, 11545 procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. ACTION: Notice.
The meeting will be open to public published in the Federal Register on
attendance. October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846). SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing
The agenda for the subject meeting Detailed meeting agendas and meeting recent Postal Service filings for the
shall be as follows: transcripts are available on the NRC Commission’s consideration concerning
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- negotiated service agreements. This
Tuesday, October 18, 2016—1:00 p.m. rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information
Until 5:00 p.m. notice informs the public of the filing,
regarding topics to be discussed, invites public comment, and takes other
The Subcommittee will discuss the changes to the agenda, whether the administrative steps.
proposed final rule 10 CFR part 61, meeting has been canceled or
DATES: Comments are due: October 5,
‘‘Low-Level Radioactive Waste rescheduled, and the time allotted to
present oral statements can be obtained 2016 (Comment due date applies to all
Disposal’’ and associated guidance. The
from the Web site cited above or by Docket Nos. listed above).
Subcommittee will hear presentations
contacting the identified DFO. ADDRESSES: Submit comments
by and hold discussions with the NRC
staff and other interested persons Moreover, in view of the possibility that electronically via the Commission’s
regarding this matter. The the schedule for ACRS meetings may be Filing Online system at http://
Subcommittee will gather information, adjusted by the Chairman as necessary www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
analyze relevant issues and facts, and to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, comments electronically should contact
formulate proposed positions and persons planning to attend should check the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
with these references if such INFORMATION CONTACT section by
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation
by the Full Committee. rescheduling would result in a major telephone for advice on filing
Members of the public desiring to inconvenience. alternatives.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
provide oral statements and/or written If attending this meeting, please enter FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
comments should notify the Designated through the One White Flint North David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, 202–789–6820.
(Telephone 301–415–5375 or Email: Rockville, MD. After registering with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov) five days security, please contact Mr. Theron
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be Table of Contents
appropriate arrangements can be made. escorted to the meeting room. I. Introduction
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Oct 03, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68659/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2016-10-04 03:03:46
Document Modified: 2016-10-04 03:03:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by November 3, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 5, 2016. Any potential party as defined in Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by October 14, 2016. | |
| Contact | Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 68467 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR