[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27094-27101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11225]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0098]
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and
Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and 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, NRC, or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act
requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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; (2) create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible in the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) online in the
NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60
days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and
[[Page 27095]]
how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention
should be permitted with particular reference to the following general
requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial,
or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any
decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the
specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have
litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[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 request or petition for hearing (even in instances in
which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern
[[Page 27096]]
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically in ADAMS online in
the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do
not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS), as
they apply to the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage requirements in TS
Section 3.7.16 and criticality requirements for Region I SFP and north
tilt pit fuel storage racks, in TS Section 4.3. The criticality
analyses supporting the proposed TS change for the Region I fuel
storage racks reflect credit for fuel assembly burnup and soluble
boron. Based on the analyses, the proposed change, in accordance with
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68,
``Criticality accident requirements,'' would maintain the effective
neutron multiplication factor (Keff) limits for Region I storage racks
to less than 1.0 when flooded with water having a minimum boron
concentration of 850 parts per million (ppm) during normal operations,
and 1350 ppm during accident conditions.
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.
There is no significant increase in the probability of an
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool
(SFP) racks when considering the presence of soluble boron in the
pool water for criticality control and the proposed changes. The
proposed changes credit fuel burnup and voiding of the gaps between
the SFP rack individual storage cells. Fuel assembly placement would
continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures and
would be in accordance with the TS fuel storage rack configuration
limitations.
There is no significant increase in the consequences of the
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the SFP racks. The
criticality analyses that credit fuel burnup and voiding of the gaps
between the SFP rack individual storage cells demonstrate that the
pool would remain subcritical with margin following an accidental
misloading if the pool contains an adequate boron concentration. The
TS 3.7.15 limitation on minimum SFP boron concentration and plant
procedures together ensure that an adequate boron concentration will
be maintained.
There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the SFP when considering the presence of
soluble boron in the SFP water for criticality control, credit fuel
burnup, and voiding of the gaps between the SFP rack individual
storage cells. The handling of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel is
performed in accordance with site procedures in borated water. The
criticality analysis has shown that the reactivity increase with a
fuel assembly drop accident in both a vertical and horizontal
orientation is bounded by the fuel assembly misloading accident.
Therefore, in addition to there being no significant increase in the
probability of a fuel assembly drop accident, the consequences of a
fuel assembly drop accident in the SFP would not increase
significantly due to the proposed change.
The SFP TS 3.7.15 requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720
ppm, which bounds the analysis for the proposed amendment. Soluble
boron has been maintained in the SFP water as required by TS and
controlled by procedures. The criticality safety analyses for Region
I and Region II of the SFP credit the same soluble boron
concentration of 850 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95 under normal
conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95 under accident
scenarios as does the analysis for the proposed change for Region I,
Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E. In crediting soluble boron, in
Region 1A, and soluble boron and burnup, in Regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and
1E, the SFP criticality analysis would have no effect on normal pool
operation and maintenance. Credit for fuel burnup and voiding of the
gaps between the SFP rack individual storage cells would have no
effect on the normal SFP operation and maintenance. Thus, there is
no change to the probability or the consequences of the boron
dilution event in the SFP.
Since soluble boron is maintained in the SFP water,
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on
normal pool operation and maintenance. Also, since soluble boron is
present in the SFP, a dilution event has always been a possibility.
The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from the SFP was
evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this proposed
amendment. The analyses use the same soluble boron concentrations as
were used in previous analyses for the Region I and Region II spent
fuel storage racks. The SFP Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E storage
racks are analyzed to allow storage of the fuel applying
[[Page 27097]]
a burnup credit (for regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), a complete loss of
Carborundum[reg] plates and complete voiding of the gaps between the
SFP individual storage cells. A minimum margin of 0.0117 is
calculated for the boron dilution events with respect to 10 CFR
50.68 criteria, both borated and unborated. All abnormal conditions
meet the 0.95 criterion at 1350 ppm of boron. Therefore, the
limitations on boron concentration have not changed and would not
result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of a previously evaluated accident.
There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the
loss of normal cooling to the SFP water, when considering this
change that credits fuel burnup, voiding of the gaps between the SFP
rack individual storage cells, and the presence of soluble boron in
the pool water for subcriticality control, since a high
concentration of soluble boron is always maintained in the SFP.
The criticality analyses documented in AREVA NP Inc. report ANP-
2858P-003, ``Palisades SFP Region 1 Criticality Evaluation with
Burnup Credit,'' show, at a 95 percent probability and a 95 percent
confidence level (95/95), that Keff is less than the regulatory
limit in 10 CFR 50.68 of 0.95 under borated conditions, or the limit
of 1.0 with unborated water. Therefore, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any
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.
Spent fuel handling accidents have been analyzed in Sections
14.11, ``Postulated Cask Drop Accidents,'' and 14.19, ``Fuel
Handling Incident,'' of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Criticality accidents in the SFP have been analyzed in previous
criticality evaluations, which are the bases for the existing TS.
The existing TS allow storage of fuel assemblies with a maximum
planar average U-235 enrichment of 4.54 weight percent in the Region
1A fuel storage rack, 4.34 weight percent in the Region 1B storage
rack, and 3.05 weight percent in the 1E Region storage rack with the
exception of one assembly in Region 1E having a maximum planar
average U-235 enrichment of 3.26 weight percent. The proposed
specifications would allow fuel enrichment to 4.54 weight percent in
existing Regions 1B, and 1E and for new Regions 1C and 1D with
minimum enrichment dependent burnup restrictions. The existing
Region 1A enrichment of 4.54 weight percent is unchanged in the
proposed specifications. The possibility of placing a fuel assembly
with greater enrichment than allowed currently exists but is
controlled by the fuel manufacturer's procedures and plant fuel
handling procedures. These manufacturer's and plant procedural
controls would remain in place. Changing the allowed enrichments
does not create a new or different kind of accident.
ENO considered the effects of a mispositioned fuel assembly. The
proposed loading restrictions include locations that are prohibited
from containing any fuel. Administrative controls are in place to
restrict fuel moves to those locations. These controls include
procedures to develop the plans for fuel movement and operation of
the fuel handling equipment. These procedures include appropriate
reviews and verifications to ensure that TS requirements are
maintained.
Furthermore, the existing TS contain limitations on the SFP
boron concentration that conservatively bound the required boron
concentration of the new criticality analysis. Currently, TS 3.7.15
requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720 ppm. Since soluble
boron is maintained in the SFP water, implementation of the proposed
changes would have no effect on normal pool operation and
maintenance. Since soluble boron is present in the SFP, a dilution
event has always been a possibility. The loss of substantial amounts
of soluble boron from the SFP was evaluated as part of the analysis
in support of Amendment No. 207. The analysis also demonstrated
that, due to the large volume of unborated water that would need to
be added and displaced, and the long duration of the event, the
condition would be detected and corrected promptly. The analyses
that support the current request use the same soluble boron
concentrations that were used in previous analyses for the Region I
and Region II spent fuel storage racks. In the unlikely event that
soluble boron in the SFP is completely diluted, the fuel in Region
I, Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E of the SFP would remain
subcritical by a design margin of at least 0.0117 delta K, so the
Keff of the fuel in Region 1 would remain below 1.0.
The combination of controls to prevent a mispositioned fuel
assembly, the ability to readily identify and correct a dilution
event, and the relatively high concentration of soluble boron
supports a conclusion that a new or different kind of accident is
not created.
Under the proposed amendment, no changes are made to the fuel
storage racks themselves, to any other systems, or to any plant
structures. Therefore, the change will not result in any other
change in the plant configuration or equipment design.
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.
Detailed analysis, with approved and benchmarked methods has
shown, with a 95 percent probability at a 95 percent confidence
level, that the Keff of the Region I, Region 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E,
fuel storage racks in the SFP, including biases, tolerances and
uncertainties, is less than 1.0 with unborated water and is less
than or equal to 0.95 with 850 ppm of soluble boron and burnup
credited (for Regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), along with complete
voiding of the gaps between the individual storage cells in the SFP
racks. In addition, the effects of abnormal and accident conditions
have been evaluated to demonstrate that under credible conditions
the Keff will not exceed 0.95 with 1350 ppm soluble boron and burnup
credited. The current TS requirement for minimum SFP boron
concentration is 1720 ppm, which provides assurance that the SFP
would remain subcritical under normal, abnormal, or accident
conditions.
The current analysis basis for the Region I and Region II fuel
storage racks is a maximum Keff of less than 1.0 when flooded with
unborated water, and less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with
water having a boron concentration of 850 ppm. In addition, the Keff
in accident or abnormal operating conditions is less than 0.95 with
1350 ppm of soluble boron. These values are not affected by the
proposed change.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 26, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request (LAR) proposes a revision to the Facility Operating
License (FOL) to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain
in effect all provisions of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved cyber security plan (CSP). The LAR was submitted pursuant to
Section 73.54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation (10 CFR)
which requires licensees currently licensed to operate a nuclear power
plant under 10 CFR Part 50 to submit a CSP for NRC review and approval.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.]
The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the
[FOL] to implement
[[Page 27098]]
and maintain a Cyber Security Plan as part of the facility's overall
program for physical protection. Inclusion of the [CSP] in the FOL
itself does not involve any modifications to the safety-related
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the [CSP]
describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented
to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and
including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving
high assurance that the facility's digital computer and
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber
attacks. The [CSP] will not alter previously evaluated Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident analysis assumptions,
add any accident initiators, or affect the function of the plant
safety-related SSCs as to how they are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. [The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.]
This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the
need of any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis. It
does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms,
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this
proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those
previously evaluated.
3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.]
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any safety limit. The
proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural integrity
of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or
containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March 18, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
safeguards information (SGI). The amendments would revise the facility
Physical Security Plan (PSP) by modifying an existing commitment
concerning armed responders.
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 requested amendment involves security activities that do not
reduce the ability for the security organization to prevent
radiological sabotage. The activities of the security organization
are not accident initiators nor do they mitigate accidents.
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 proposed change involves functions of the security
organization concerning utilization of personnel to implement the
revised PlNGP defensive strategy. Analysis of the proposed change
has not indicated nor identified 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 will not reduce the number of armed
responders committed to in the PlNGP PSP. The change will affect
only the functions within the Security organization and has no
impact upon nor causes a significant reduction in margin of safety
for plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)).
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR Parts
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI
regulations.
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 or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. 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 or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI, SGI, or both 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
[[Page 27099]]
Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier
mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for
the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
[email protected] and [email protected], respectively.\1\ The
request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI and/or SGI
under these procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1);
(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the
need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this
adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why
publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be
sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention;
(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who
would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the
identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the
requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain
the following information:
(a) A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know''
the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent
with the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the
statement must explain:
(i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is
necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a
specific contention in this proceeding; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are 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
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the
requested SGI 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 satisfies these criteria.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by
10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure
web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-492-3524.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requestor will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requestor
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by
calling 301-415-7232 or 301-492-7311, or by e-mail to
[email protected]. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), which mandates
that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for an FBI
identification and criminal history records check;
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $ 200.00 \4\ to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of
Personnel Management's adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration,
Personnel Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the
claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the
Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status
prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the
background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258;
however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need
to know, are still applicable.
Note: Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs
C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following
address: Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop TWB-05-B32M,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
These documents and materials should not 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 required
above.
D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the
requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and
accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The
NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
Paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, 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 or need to know the SGI requested.
F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines
that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(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 those documents. These conditions
may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure
Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order \5\ setting
[[Page 27100]]
forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to
SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that
the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the
Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals
are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the
requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will
be provided. Those conditions may include, but not be limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
\6\ by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively,
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days
after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if
more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted
access to the information and the deadline for filing all other
contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that
later deadline.
J. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination with respect to access to SUNSI by filing a challenge
within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding
officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has
been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law
judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with
that officer.
(4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI
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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI 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.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May, 2011.
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 and 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) and/or Safeguards
Information (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 requestor/petitioner reply).
[[Page 27101]]
20.......................................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of
the staff's determination whether the request for access provides
a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and
shows (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,'' no ``need to know,'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial
of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the
presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other
designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need''
for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose
interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to
reverse the NRC staff's grant of access.
30.......................................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff
determination(s).
40.......................................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI,
deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
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
to SGI, 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 trustworthiness or reliability determination either before
the presiding officer or another designated officer under 10 CFR
2.705(c)(3)(iv).
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.
A + 60...................................... Decision on contention admission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2011-11225 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P