[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32742-32749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12827]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

I. Background

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

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license

[[Page 32743]]

amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its 
final determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should 
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or 
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to 
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it 
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the 
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available 
records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The

[[Page 32744]]

Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information 
about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to [email protected].

Carolina Power & 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: April 3, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 5.6.3.b to allow 
a reconfiguration of the fuel racks in spent fuel pool (SFP) C and 
allow the use of Metamic as an alternate neutron poison material in the 
new storage racks for SFP C and D. The proposed amendment will: (1) 
revise the rack configuration in SFP C to allow the substitution of 
four previously approved (13 x 13 cell) boiling water reactor racks 
with an equal number of (9 x 9 cell) pressurized water reactor racks, 
and (2) authorize the use of Metamic as an alternate spent fuel rack 
poison material.
    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 license amendment only revises the SFP C configuration and 
provides an optional poison material Metamic for the spent fuel pool 
racks. These changes do not modify the design of Structures, Systems 
and Components (SSCs) that could initiate an accident. This system 
has been evaluated for the conditions that would exist with the new 
configuration and new poison materials. It was found that the rack 
configuration has been previously evaluated for all enveloping 
accidents. Also, the Metamic poison material has been evaluated for 
all enveloping accidents and it can be concluded that there would be 
no increase in dose from a fuel handling accident in the FHB [Fuel 
Handling Building].
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The license amendment only revises the SFP C configuration and 
allows the optional poison material Metamic for the spent fuel pool 
racks. License Amendment 103 Safety Evaluation addressed applicable 
design basis accidents for the addition of the SFP racks. Since no 
structural properties are attributed to the Boral or Metamic, this 
is an acceptable substitution. The properties of Metamic are

[[Page 32745]]

equal to or better than Boral in ensuring criticality control. No 
significant impact on any postulated accident is made due to this 
change. The Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System (FPCCS) and Spent 
Fuel Pool Racks will operate within design parameters.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    In accordance with License Amendment 103 and the submitted 
Holtec report in Attachment 7, the change in the Spent Fuel Pool 
Rack configuration and poison substitution is bounded by previous 
evaluations of the safety-related systems to design basis accidents. 
The fixed neutron absorber (Metamic) has been demonstrated as 
acceptable for dry and wet storage applications on a generic basis. 
Additionally, the NRC has approved the use of Metamic in both wet 
storage and dry storage nuclear plant applications.
    The margin of safety for sub criticality is maintained by having 
keff [effective multiplication factor] equal to or less than 0.95 
under all normal storage, fuel handling and accident conditions, 
including uncertainties. Since Metamic provides a lower calculated 
keff than does Boral, 0.90929 versus 0.91062, the margin of safety 
slightly increases with the use of Metamic.Therefore, the proposed 
changes do 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 Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt the 
bypass test time, Completion Time, and Surveillance Frequency changes 
through the implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
approved WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1 and WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1.
    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 overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no 
hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS), 
engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS), and loss of 
power (LOP) diesel generator start and bus separation 
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems 
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant 
design basis. The changes to the TSs do not result in a condition 
where the design, material, and construction standards that were 
applicable prior to the change are altered. The proposed changes 
will not modify any system interface. The proposed changes will not 
affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no 
degradation in the performance of or an increase in the number of 
challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function 
during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal 
plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance. The 
proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any 
mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    The determination that the results of the proposed changes are 
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared 
for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for 
WCAP-1 5376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). 
Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an 
insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has 
been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of 
the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC 
Safety Evaluation conditions.
    The proposed changes to the Completion Times, bypass test times, 
and Surveillance Frequencies reduce the potential for inadvertent 
reactor trips and spurious engineered safety feature (ESF) 
actuations, and therefore do not increase the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not change 
the response of the plant to any accidents and have an insignificant 
impact on the reliability of the RTS, ESFAS and LOP diesel generator 
start and bus separation signals. The RTS, ESFAS and LOP diesel 
generator start and bus separation instrumentation will remain 
highly reliable and the proposed changes will not result in a 
significant increase in the risk of plant operation. This is 
demonstrated by showing that the impact on plant safety as measured 
by the increase in core damage frequency (CDF) is less than 1.0E-06 
per year and the increase in large early release frequency (LERF) is 
less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition, for the Completion Time 
changes, the incremental conditional core damage probabilities 
(ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early release 
probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08, 
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in 
Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS, ESFAS 
and LOP diesel generator start and bus separation instrumentation 
will continue to perform their functions with high reliability as 
originally assumed, and the risk impact as measured by the 
[utri]CDF, [utri]LERF, ICCDP, and ICLERP risk metrics is within the 
acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not 
be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and component from 
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of 
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions 
and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety 
function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of 
plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or 
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical 
alteration to any plant system nor will there be any change in the 
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety 
function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident 
analysis assumptions.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges 
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for 
any analyzed event

[[Page 32746]]

nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit (SAL). There will 
be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 
system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined 
nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to 
assure the accomplishment of protection functions.
    The redundancy of RTS and ESFAS trains and the LOP diesel 
generator start and bus separation instrumentation is maintained, 
and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip 
and ESF actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as 
primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the 
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will 
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the 
acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. 
Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human factors 
benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test times, it 
is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a reduced 
potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations associated with 
testing.
    Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in 
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
    (a) Reduced testing should result in fewer inadvertent reactor 
trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, less frequent 
distraction of operations personnel without significantly affecting 
RTS and ESFAS reliability.
    (b) Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in 
monitoring and controlling plant operation should be realized. This 
is due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift 
supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short 
Completion Times.
    (c) The time provided by the proposed increase in Completion 
Times and bypass test times should reduce the potential for human 
errors by the personnel performing Required Actions, corrective 
maintenance, and Surveillance Testing.
    (d) The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers 
should provide additional time to complete test and maintenance 
activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced 
outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion 
Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the 
logic trains.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: April 14, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the list of topical reports used to prepare the 
core operating limits report by adding a new methodology that 
implements a realistic analysis methodology. The proposed changes would 
add a new reference in Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.14.a. The 
new reference is ``EMF-2103P-A, ``Realistic Large Break LOCA 
Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors''.'' The change would be 
utilized in core loading designs for Unit 1 fuel-load configurations in 
future operating cycles.
    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 adds an approved analytical method for 
evaluating a large break (LB) loss of coolant accident (LOCA). The 
proposed change will not affect previously evaluated accidents 
because they continue to be analyzed by NRC approved methodologies 
to ensure required safety limits are maintained. The acceptance 
criteria of the SQN Final Safety Analysis Report analyzed accidents 
and anticipated operational occurrences are not affected by the 
proposed addition of the realistic LB LOCA methodology. As the 
evaluations for accidents and operation occurrences are not 
adversely affected, the proposed change will not increase the 
consequences of a postulated event.
    The proposed change does not result in any modification of the 
plant equipment or operating practices and therefore, does not alter 
plant conditions or plant response prior to or after postulated 
events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    As previously noted, the proposed change does not result in any 
modification of the plant equipment or operating practices and 
therefore, does not alter plant conditions or plant response prior 
to or after postulated events.
    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 does not alter plant equipment including the 
automatic accident mitigation setpoints designed to mitigate the 
affects of a postulated accident. The accident analyses and plant 
safety limits continue to be acceptable as evaluated by NRC approved 
methodologies. The proposed application of the realistic LB LOCA 
methodology ensures acceptable margins and limits for fuel core 
designs.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for 
Contention Preparation

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 
50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania; Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 
50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents 
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
    2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of 
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the 
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any 
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by 
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 
10 CFR

[[Page 32747]]

2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be 
considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the 
Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, 
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited 
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The 
e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the 
General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See footnote 6. While a request for hearing or petition to 
intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing 
requirements of the NRC's ``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to 
access SUNSI and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted 
as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
    b. The name and address of the potential party and a description of 
the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by 
the action identified in (a);
     c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information 
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, 
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would 
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention;
    d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or 
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and 
information that shows:
    (i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful 
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and 
use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and 
specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a 
potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified 
expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence 
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a 
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective 
order; and
    e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-248 (fingerprint card), and a credit 
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI 
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI. 
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically, 
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the 
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration 
at 301-415-0320.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in 
original ink, accompanied by a check or money order payable in the 
amount of $191.00 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each 
individual, and mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security 
Processing Unit, Mail Stop T-6E46, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name, 
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, 
and e-mail addess. After providing this information, the requester 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which 
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check.

    Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the 
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request 
letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as 
described above.

    4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all 
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including 
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will 
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
    5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten 
days of receipt of the written access request whether (1) there is a 
reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish 
standing to participate in this NRC proceeding, and (2) there is a 
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested. 
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the 
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the 
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in 
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the 
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, 
education, or experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI 
requested in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly 
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff 
redaction of information from requested documents before their 
release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These 
procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny 
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will 
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether 
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will 
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's 
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from 
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at 
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection 
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
    7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
    a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to 
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
     b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a 
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed 
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
    c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms 
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
    d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning 
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued 
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 25 
days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) 
the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as 
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the 
petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later 
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the 
Chief Administative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a 
presiding officer to do so.

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

[[Page 32748]]

    8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms 
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be 
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure 
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties 
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts 
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement 
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the 
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within five (5) days, 
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff 
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access 
determination (and may participate in the development of such a 
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by 
the release of the information (e.g., as with properietary 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or 
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a 
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a 
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall 
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of 
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the 
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or 
explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's 
adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect 
to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within five 
(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 Sec.  2.318(a); or (c) if another 
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with 
that officer. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an 
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a 
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
    In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge 
an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would 
harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a 
challenge must be filed within five (5) days of the notification by the 
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As of Ocober 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule'' 
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency 
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that 
the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff 
determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer 
of the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI/SGI 
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2008.

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

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Day                             Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                                proposed action and opportunity for
                                hearing, including order with
                                instructions for access requests.
10...........................  Deadline for submitting requests for
                                access to SUNSI and/or SGI with
                                information: supporting the standing of
                                a potential party identified by name and
                                address; describing the need for the
                                information in order for the potential
                                party to participate meaningfully in an
                                adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating
                                that access should be granted (e.g.,
                                showing technical competence for access
                                to SGI); and, for SGI, including
                                application fee for fingerprint/
                                background check.
60...........................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                                intervention containing: (i)
                                Demonstration of standing; (ii) all
                                contentions whose formulation does not
                                require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25
                                Answers to petition for intervention; +7
                                petitioner/requestor reply).
20...........................  NRC staff informs the requester of the
                                staff's determination whether the
                                request for access provides a reasonable
                                basis to believe standing can be
                                established and shows (1) need for SUNSI
                                or (2) need to know for SGI. (For SUNSI,
                                NRC staff also informs any party to the
                                proceeding whose interest independent of
                                the proceeding would be harmed by the
                                release of the information.) If NRC
                                staff makes the finding of need for
                                SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC
                                staff begins document processing
                                (preparation of redactions or review of
                                redacted documents). If NRC staff makes
                                the finding of need to know for SGI and
                                likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
                                background check (including
                                fingerprinting for a criminal history
                                records check), information processing
                                (preparation of redactions or review of
                                redacted documents), and readiness
                                inspections.
25...........................  If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' ``need to
                                know,'' or likelihood of standing, the
                                deadline for petitioner/requester to
                                file a motion seeking a ruling to
                                reverse the NRC staff's denial of
                                access; NRC staff files copy of access
                                determination with the presiding officer
                                (or Chief Administrative Judge or other
                                designated officer, as appropriate). If
                                NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
                                deadline for any party to the proceeding
                                whose interest independent of the
                                proceeding would be harmed by the
                                release of the information to file a
                                motion seeking a ruling to reverse the
                                NRC staff's grant of access.
30...........................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions
                                to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40...........................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing
                                and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
                                staff to complete information processing
                                and file motion for Protective Order and
                                draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline
                                for applicant/licensee to file Non-
                                Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.

[[Page 32749]]

 
190..........................  (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds
                                standing, need to know for SGI, and
                                trustworthiness and reliability,
                                deadline for NRC staff to file motion
                                for Protective Order and draft Non-
                                disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
                                determination that the proposed
                                recipient of SGI is not trustworthy or
                                reliable). Note: Before the Office of
                                Administration makes an adverse
                                determination regarding access, the
                                proposed recipient must be provided an
                                opportunity to correct or explain
                                information.
205..........................  Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal
                                of a final adverse NRC staff
                                determination either before the
                                presiding officer or another designated
                                officer.
A............................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                                officer or other designated officer
                                decision on motion for protective order
                                for access to sensitive information
                                (including schedule for providing access
                                and submission of contentions) or
                                decision reversing a final adverse
                                determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3........................  Deadline for filing executed Non-
                                Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided
                                to SUNSI and/or SGI consistent with
                                decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28.......................  Deadline for submission of contentions
                                whose development depends upon access to
                                SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more than
                                25 days remain between the petitioner's
                                receipt of (or access to) the
                                information and the deadline for filing
                                all other contentions (as established in
                                the notice of hearing or opportunity for
                                hearing), the petitioner may file its
                                SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later
                                deadline.
A + 53.......................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                                contentions whose development depends
                                upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60.......................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                                reply to answers.
B............................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-12827 Filed 6-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P