[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8288-8296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2865]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0016]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity for comments, request
for hearing and petition for leave to intervene, and order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by March 15, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by April 16, 2012. Any potential party as defined
in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.4, who
believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
(SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request document
access by February 24, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0016 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2012-0016. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301-492-3668; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax Comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 8289]]
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine,
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2012-0016.
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 SUNSI.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 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.
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the
NRC Web site at 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 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
[[Page 8290]]
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 the 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 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 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 agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through 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 the 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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 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 email 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 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
[[Page 8291]]
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 February 14, 2012. 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).
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: October 28, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Minimum Critical Power Ratio Safety Limit
(MCPR SL) values for both two-loop and single-loop operation in
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2 in accordance with the
requirements set forth in GE Nuclear Energy topical report NEDC-33173P,
``Applicability of GE Methods to Expanded Operating Domains,'' Revision
0, dated February 2006.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Bases to TS 2.1.1.2 states that: ``The MCPR SL ensures
sufficient conservatism in the operating MCPR limit that, in the
event of an AOO [Anticipated Operational Occurrence] from the
limiting condition of operation, at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in
the core would be expected to avoid boiling transition.''
Certain limitations and conditions referenced in the NRC Safety
Evaluation for GE Nuclear Energy, ``Applicability of GE Methods to
Expanded Operating Domains,'' NEDC-33173P, Revision 0, February 2006
are applicable for extended power uprate operation. The proposed
change addresses the following limitation and condition stated in
the NRC SE [safety evaluation] for NEDC-33173P:
For EPU [extended power uprate] operation, a 0.02 value shall be
added to the cycle-specific SLMCPR value. This adder is applicable
to SLO [single-loop operation], which is derived from the dual loop
SLMCPR value.
Based on the application of Global Nuclear Fuels' NRC approved
MCPR SL methodology, the conclusions of the Cycle 19 reload analyses
indicate that the values for two-loop and single-loop MCPR SL should
be increased to account for this 0.02 margin. The resulting values
add additional margin to the MCPR SLs and continue to ensure the
conservatism described in the Bases to TS 2.1.1.2.
The requested Technical Specification change does not involve
any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect
system reliability or performance or that could affect the
probability of operator error. The requested change does not affect
any postulated accident precursors, any accident mitigating systems,
or introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change to increase the MCPR SLs does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any new modes of operation,
any changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The proposed
change to the MCPR SLs accounts for the 0.02 adder specified in the
NRC Safety Evaluation limitations and conditions associated with
NEDC-33173P. Compliance with the criterion for incipient boiling
transition continues to be ensured. The core operating limits will
continue to be developed using NRC approved methods. The proposed
MCPR SLs do not result in the creation of any new precursors to an
accident.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The MCPR SLs have been evaluated in accordance with Global
Nuclear Fuels NRC approved cycle-specific safety limit methodology
to ensure that during normal operation and during AOOs at least
99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are not expected to experience
transition boiling. The proposed revision to the MCPR SLs accounts
for the 0.02 adder specified in the NRC Safety Evaluation
limitations and conditions associated with NEDC-33173P, which
results in additional margin above that specified in the TS Bases.
Therefore, the proposed change to the MCPR SLs 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: August 19, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.17, ``Spent
Fuel Pool Storage;'' and TS 4.3.1, ``[Fuel Storage] Criticality,'' to
correct non-conservatisms in the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) criticality
analysis-of-record, which have translated into non-conservative TS.
Additionally, the amendments would revise the licensing basis to change
the regulatory basis for the SFP criticality analysis from Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 70.24, to 10 CFR 50.68(b), and
to change the evaluation methodology used for the SFP criticality
analysis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes,
[[Page 8292]]
fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in
the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the SFP
cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for
impact on the following previously-evaluated events and accidents:
(1) Fuel handling accident (FHA), (2) fuel assembly misloading, (3)
seismically-induced movement of spent fuel storage racks, (4) loss
of spent fuel pool cooling, and (5) spent fuel boron dilution.
Although implementation of the proposed amendment will require
handling of fuel assemblies to achieve the new configurations, the
probability of a FHA is not increased because the implementation of
the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and procedures
to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. Therefore, the
proposed amendments do not increase the probability for occurrence
of a FHA. In that the proposed amendment does not involve changes to
the radiological source term of any fuel assembly, the amendment
would not increase the radiological consequences of a FHA. With
regard to the potential criticality consequences of a dropped
assembly coming to rest adjacent to a storage rack or on top of a
storage rack, the results are bounded by the fuel assembly
misloading event which is analyzed to provide sufficient margin to
criticality. The fuel configuration caused by a dropped assembly
resting on top of loaded storage racks is inherently bounded by the
assembly misloaded in the storage rack because the misloaded
assembly is in closer proximity to other assemblies along its entire
fuel length.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection
and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require
identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel
assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of
a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading
event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of occurrence of a seismic event, which is
considered an Act of God. Also, the consequences of a seismic event
are not changed because the proposed amendment involves no change to
the types of material stored in SFP storage racks or their mass. In
this manner, the forcing functions for seismic excitation and the
resulting forces are not changed. Also, particular to criticality,
the supporting criticality analysis takes no credit for gaps between
rack modules so any seismically-induced movement of racks into a
closer proximity would not result in an unanalyzed condition with
consequences worse than those analyzed. In summary, the proposed
amendment will not increase the probability or consequence of a
seismic event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because
the change in fuel loading configurations has no bearing on the
systems, structures, and components involved in initiating such an
event. The proposed amendment does not change the heat load imposed
by spent fuel assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the
spent fuel pool. Finally, a new criticality analysis of the limiting
fuel loading configuration confirmed that the condition would remain
subcritical at the resulting temperature value.
Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the
proposed amendment.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the change
in fuel loading configurations has no bearing on the systems,
structures, and components involved in initiating or sustaining the
intrusion of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. The
consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged because the
proposed amendment has no bearing on the systems that operators
would use to identify and terminate a dilution event. Also,
implementation of the proposed amendment will not affect any of the
other key parameters of the boron dilution analysis which includes
SFP water inventory, volume of SFP contents, initial boron
concentration requirement, and the sources of dilution water.
Finally, a new criticality analysis of the limiting fuel loading
configuration confirmed that the dilution event would be terminated
at a soluble boron concentration value that ensured a subcritical
condition.
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
The proposed amendments involve new SFP loading configurations
for current and legacy fuel designs of the nuclear plant. The
proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling
processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be
stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel
pool cooling and cleanup system. As such, the proposed changes
introduce no new material interactions, man-machine interfaces, or
processes that could create the potential for an accident of a new
or different type. This determination is based on the review of the
two significant SFP loading changes proposed by the amendment: (1)
New storage arrays, and (2) use of Rod Cluster Control Assemblies
(RCCAs) in one new proposed array.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage arrays will not create
a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement will
continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures.
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage arrays meet these requirements
and criteria with adequate margins. Thus, the proposed storage
arrays cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
Implementation of the proposed new storage array that credits an
RCCA inserted into a center assembly does not create the potential
for a new or different type of accident because the operation is
controlled with procedural controls comparable to those used for
fuel assembly placement in the SFP and because the inadvertent RCCA
removal was explicitly evaluated in the revised criticality
analysis. RCCAs are installed in spent fuel assemblies in accordance
with approved procedures, and movement is controlled in accordance
with approved fuel transfer logs that identify and then
independently verify their placement. The inadvertent removal of an
RCCA from an array has been evaluated with acceptable results. The
effects are bounded by the fuel assembly misloading event.
Thus, the use of RCCAs in the proposed array does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of
safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4) is
unchanged. The new criticality analysis confirms that operation in
accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the
required subcriticality margin. Also, revised loading restrictions
in the proposed TS have actually reduced the soluble boron
requirements for the limiting normal configuration, thereby
increasing the margin for the postulated boron dilution event.
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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shawn A. Williams.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: July 29, 2011. This amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise a
number of Technical Specification (TS) requirements, to allow the
licensee to use the AREVA 16x16 reactor fuel on a
[[Page 8293]]
permanent basis in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units
2 and 3. These changes include revising TS 5.7.1.5, Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR), to update the methodology reference list to
support the core design with the new AREVA fuel; revising TS 4.2.1,
Fuel Assemblies, to include the description of the new fuel cladding
material (M5); revising TS 2.1.1.2, Reactor Core Safety Limits, to
identify a fuel centerline melt safety limit for the AREVA fuel with
corresponding adjustments made to account for the burnable absorber
fuel rods; and incorporating fuel burnup limits consistent with AREVA
M5 clad fuel assemblies into the SONGS licensing basis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The reactor fuel and the analyses associated with the fuel are not
accident initiators. The response of the fuel to an accident is
analyzed using conservative techniques and the results are compared
to the approved acceptance criteria. These evaluation results will
show that the fuel response to an accident is within approved
acceptance criteria for both cores loaded with the new AREVA CE
[Combustion Engineering]-HTP (High Thermal Performance) fuel and for
cores loaded with both AREVA and Westinghouse design fuel.
Therefore, the change in fuel design does not affect accident or
transient initiation or consequences.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 (Reactor
Core Safety Limits) does not require any physical change to any
plant system, structure, or component. The change to establish the
peak fuel centerline temperature is consistent with existing
approved analysis methodology.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 4.2.1 (Fuel
Assemblies) includes M5 [\TM\] cladding. The change in cladding
materials and fuel assembly design such as grids has been evaluated
in this submittal and all acceptance criteria are met.
Topical Reports have been reviewed and approved by the NRC for
use in determining core operating limits. The core operating limits
to be developed using the new methodologies will be established in
according with the applicable limitations as documented in the
appropriate NRC Safety Evaluation reports. The proposed change to
Technical Specification 5.7.1.5 (Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR)) enables the use of appropriate methodologies to analyze
accidents. The proposed methodologies will ensure that the plant
continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis
acceptance criteria.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies
listed in Technical Specification 5.7.1.5 has no impact on any plant
configuration or system performance relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of an accident. The proposed change will update the
listing of NRC-approved methodologies to allow analysis of both
AREVA and Westinghouse fuel designs. Changes to the calculated core
operating limits may only be made using NRC-approved methods, must
be consistent with all applicable safety analysis limits and are
controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The list of methodologies in
Technical Specification 5.7.1.5 does not impact either the
initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Use of AREVA CE-HTP fuel in SONGS reactor cores is consistent
with the current plant design bases and does not adversely affect
any fission product barrier, nor does it alter the safety function
of safety systems, structures, or components, or their roles in
accident prevention or mitigations. The operational characteristics
of AREVA CE-HTP fuel are bounded by the safety analyses. The AREVA
CE-HTP fuel design performs within fuel design limits and does not
create the possibility of a new or different accident.
The proposed change to the Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 does
not require any physical change to any plant system, structure, or
component, nor does it require any change in safety analysis methods
or results. The existing analyses remain unchanged and do not affect
any accident initiators that would create a new accident.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 4.2.1 does not
create any new accident initiators. For example, postulated pipe
breaks and valve motions are unaffected by the fuel design. Possible
impacts such as postulated CEA [control element assembly] motions
are unaffected because the interface between the fuel assembly and
the CEA has been designed to be unchanged.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies
listed in Technical Specification 5.7.1.5 has no impact on any plant
configuration or system performance. It updates the list of NRC-
approved topical reports used to develop the core operating limits.
There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is
normally operated. The possibility of a new or different accident is
not created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident [from] any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety. The margin of safety as defined in the basis for
any technical specification will not be reduced by the proposed
change to the computer programs used for physics calculations for
nuclear design analyses.
Use of AREVA CE-HTP fuel in SONGS reactor cores is consistent
with the current plant design bases and does not adversely affect
any fission product barrier, nor does it alter the safety function
of safety systems, structures, or components, or their roles in
accident prevention or mitigation. The operational characteristics
of AREVA CE-HTP fuel in SONGS reactor cores are evaluated by the
safety analyses and meet the safety analysis criteria. The AREVA CE-
HTP fuel in SONGS reactor cores performs within fuel design limits.
The proposed changes do not result in exceeding design basis limits.
Therefore, all licensed safety margins are maintained.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 does not
require any physical change to any plant system, structure, or
component, nor does it require any change in safety analysis methods
or results. Therefore, by changing the peak fuel centerline
temperature adjustment for burnable poisons, the margin as
established in the current licensing basis remains unchanged.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 4.2.1 has been
evaluated in this submittal and all acceptance criteria are met.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies
listed in Technical Specification 5.7.1.5 has no impact on any plant
configuration or system performance. Topical Reports have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC for use in determining core
operating limits. The proposed methodologies will ensure that the
plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety
analysis acceptance criteria.
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: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
[[Page 8294]]
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 9, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) (security-
related). The amendment would permit the Union Electric Company (the
licensee) to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis based on
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805,
``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water
Reactor Generating Plants (2001 Edition),'' that complies with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide
1.205, ``Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.''
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 transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Callaway Plant in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. Engineering analyses, which may
include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments,
and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate
that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have been
satisfied. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) documents the
analyses of design basis accidents (DBA) at Callaway Plant. The
proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators, nor does it
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the
facility that would increase the probability of accidents previously
evaluated. Further, the changes to be made for fire hazard
protection and mitigation do not adversely affect the ability of
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their design
functions for accident mitigation, nor do they affect the postulated
initiators or assumed failure modes for accidents described and
evaluated in the FSAR. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor
and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable
of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit [the
licensee] to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805 taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to
10 CFR 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire
protection regulations and guidance, and provides for defense-in-
depth. The goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria
specified in Chapter 1 of the standard ensure that, if there are any
increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the increase will
be small and consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety
Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the assumed function(s). The proposed amendment will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological
dose criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not increased with the implementation of the proposed amendment.
2. Does the transition to NFPA 805 create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Callaway Plant in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not alter the requirements or functions for systems
required during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements of
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance Regulatory Guide 1.205 will
not result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions,
conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform
their design function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor
and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit [the
licensee] to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and appropriate performance
criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and
features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50,
Appendix R required fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16,
2004).
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been
evaluated. Based on this, implementation of the proposed amendment
would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this
amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on
any safety-related system as a result of this amendment.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of this amendment.
3. Does the transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of Callaway Plant in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or
the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the
FSAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability
of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely
shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit [the
licensee] to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are
an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance based requirements of
NFPA 805 do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and
safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Therefore, the
transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured to implement the
NRC's mission to protect public health and safety, promote the
common defense and security, and
[[Page 8295]]
protect the environment. NFPA 805 is also consistent with the key
principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in
Regulatory Guide 1.174, is consistent with the defense-in-depth
philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
Based on the evaluations noted in items 1, 2 and 3 above [the
licensee] has concluded that the proposed amendment presents no
significant hazards consideration per the requirements set forth in
10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly a finding of ``no significant
hazards consideration'' is justified.
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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the
request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall
immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason
or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The
[[Page 8296]]
availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling
on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access)
is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February, 2012.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 requestor/petitioner reply).
20....................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information). If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
requestor/petitioner to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2012-2865 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P