[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