[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48556-48564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18758]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0175]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request, opportunity to comment, request a 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene, order.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 13, 2012. A request for a 
hearing or leave to intervene must be filed by October 15, 2012. Any 
potential party as defined in Title to or 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 August 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0175. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0175. 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.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0175 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0175.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0175 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

[[Page 48557]]

II. 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 or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

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

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

[[Page 48558]]

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's 
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's 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 the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 
[email protected].

[[Page 48559]]

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 10, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Publicly 
available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML12038A036 and 
ML12136A126. The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) for new and spent fuel storage as the result of a new criticality 
analyses for the new fuel vault (NFV) and the spent fuel pool (SFP). 
The amendment would revise TS to eliminate the current SFP storage 
configurations which rely on Boraflex absorbing material in the SFP. 
The proposed new SFP storage configurations would use a combination of 
partial credit for soluble boron, Boral\TM\ for Region 1, burnup, rod 
cluster control assemblies, peripheral leakage in one area of Region 2, 
and cooling time to maintain the effective neutron multiplication 
factor (keff) below regulatory limits with a 95-percent 
probability at 95-percent confidence level. The storage racks in Region 
1 will account for the potential for blistering of Boral\TM\ and the 
storage racks in Region 2 will no longer credit the presence of any 
Boraflex as a neutron absorbing material. The proposed license 
amendment would also revise TS to allow full capacity fuel storage in 
the NFV at the maximum allowable enrichment.
    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. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. Operation in accordance with proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not 
change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, spent fuel 
storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the 
spent fuel pool (SFP) or the new fuel vault (NFV, decay heat 
generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. There are 
also no changes to the NFV storage racks or the new fuel handling 
processes.
    Operation of the SFP utilizes soluble boron; crediting this 
boron for criticality control does not change the probability of any 
accident. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the 
following previously evaluated events and accidents;
    a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
    b. A fuel mis-positioning event,
    c. A seismic event, and
    d. A loss of SFP cooling event.
    The probability of a FHA is not increased because implementation 
of the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and 
processes to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. The FHA 
radiological consequences are not increased because the radiological 
source term of a single fuel assembly will remain unchanged. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of a FHA.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
significantly increase the probability of a fuel mis-positioning 
event 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. The consequences of a fuel mis-
positioning event are not changed because the reactivity analysis 
demonstrates that the new subcriticality criteria and requirements 
will be met for the worst-case fuel mis-positioning event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a seismic event. The consequences of a 
seismic event are not increased because the forcing functions for 
seismic excitation are not increased and because the mass of storage 
racks has not changed.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the 
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The 
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no 
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures or 
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the 
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the 
presence of Boral\TM\ blisters.
    The proposed amendment also does not increase the probability of 
any event in the NFV since there are no changes to the handling of 
fuel within the NFV or to the fuel storage racks. The proposed 
amendment was evaluated for impact for the previously evaluated full 
flooded and optimum moderated accidents. Operation in accordance 
with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of the 
NFV being flooded with full density or optimum density water. The 
consequences of the fully flooded event have been demonstrated to 
meet applicable criteria. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an event 
within the NFV.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed amendment 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. Operation 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 amendment does not 
change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, spent fuel racks 
or new fuel vault rack, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored 
in the pool or the new fuel vault, decay heat generation rate, or 
the SFP cooling and cleanup system.
    Seabrook procedures require soluble boron to be present in the 
SFP, as such; the possibility of an inadvertent fuel pool dilution 
event has always existed. However, the SFP dilution analysis that 
accompanies this submittal demonstrates that no credible dilution 
event could increase fuel pool reactivity such that the effective 
neutron multiplication (keff) exceeds 0.95. Therefore, 
implementation of credit for soluble boron to control reactivity in 
the SFP will not create the possibility of a new or different type 
of criticality accident.
    The limiting fuel assembly mispositioning event does not 
represent a new or different type of accident. The mispositioning of 
a fuel assembly within the fuel storage racks has always been 
possible. The locations of SFP rack modules and the specific modules 
assigned to each storage region remain unchanged; analysis results 
show that the storage racks remain sub-critical, with substantial 
margin, following a worst-case fuel misloading event. Therefore, a 
fuel assembly misload event that involves new fuel storage 
arrangements required by the criticality analysis does not result in 
a new or different type of criticality accident.
    The potential for blistering on the Boral\TM\ has been evaluated 
and the neutron poison will continue to fulfill its function. 
Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or different type of 
accident associated with this change.
    The change in the storage requirements for the NFV does not 
introduce the probability of a new or different accident since 
procedures used for fuel movement will remain unchanged.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that operation with the 
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    No. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The 
proposed change was evaluated for its effect on margins of safety 
related to criticality and spent fuel heat removal capability.
    The changes proposed by this license amendment ensure that the 
fuel in the SFP will remain sub-critical under normal and accident 
conditions. The controlled placement of fuel assemblies within the 
SFP will maintain keff less than or equal to 0.95 as 
required by TS 5.6.1.1 for spent fuel storage and less than 1.0 if 
flooded with unborated water. The proposed amendment maintains the 
0.95 limit on keff by restricting the placement of fuel 
and by partially

[[Page 48560]]

crediting soluble boron in the fuel pool water.
    The proposed change does not affect spent fuel heat generation 
or the spent fuel cooling systems. A conservative analysis indicates 
that the design basis requirements and criteria for spent fuel 
cooling continue to be met with Boral\TM\ blistering considered.
    The changes for the NFV proposed by this license amendment 
ensure that the fuel remains sub-critical under normal and accident 
conditions. The NFV will continue to meet the keff limits 
as defined by TS 5.6.1.2.a and TS 5.6.1.2.b. Based on these 
evaluations, operating the facility with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in any 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: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Publicly 
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12178A070. The 
amendment would revise the Facility Operating License (FOL) for 
paragraph 2.E, ``Physical Security.'' The proposed amendment would 
revise FOL paragraph E to change the description of Milestone 6.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. 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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Publicly 
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12122A011. The 
proposed amendment would make changes to the cyber security plan 
implementation schedule for Milestones 3 and 6 at Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Susquehanna). The cyber security plan 
will be updated accordingly. Specifically, for Milestone 3, PPL 
Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) proposes to install a deterministic data diode 
appliance between Layers 3 and 2 instead of between Layers 3 and 4, 
with no change to the approved implementation date. For Milestone 6, 
PPL proposes to implement the technical controls for critical digital 
assets (CDAs) by the approved implementation date, and to implement the 
operational and management controls for the CDAs in conjunction with 
the full implementation of the Cyber Security Program. The NRC 
considers changes of this nature to be site-specific changes, and the 
proposed changes to Milestone 6 will be reviewed as such.
    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, with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.

Milestone 3

    The proposed amendment changes some details of the architecture 
to be used to provide protection against cyber attacks at 
Susquehanna. The proposed modification to the cyber security 
architecture is an overall increase in protection for the critical 
digital systems and components. The proposed change to the cyber 
security plan and cyber security architecture does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Since the 
proposed modification is an overall increase in protection, the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents are 
not adversely affected and there is no adverse impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Milestone 6

    The proposed amendment would [modify] the scope of the 
[security] controls to be implemented for target set equipment by 
December 31, 2012. The [site-specific change] to the Cyber Security 
Plan Implementation Schedule [will continue to provide a high degree 
of protection against cyber-related attacks that could lead to 
radiological

[[Page 48561]]

sabotage. In addition, existing programs that are currently in place 
at Susquehanna (e.g., physical protection, maintenance and work 
management, and configuration management, operations experience, 
etc.) provide a high degree of operational and management 
protection]. This change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The change does not require any 
plant modifications, which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components [SSC] relied upon to mitigate 
the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Overall Conclusion

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of, accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.

Milestone 3

    The proposed amendment changes some details of the architecture 
to be used to provide protection against cyber attacks at 
Susquehanna. The proposed modification to the cyber security 
architecture is an overall increase in protection for the critical 
digital systems and components. This change to the cyber security 
architecture does not result in the need for any new or different 
FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] design basis accident analysis. 
In addition, the change does not introduce new equipment that could 
create a new or different kind of accident and no new equipment 
failure modes are created. Since the proposed modification to the 
cyber security architecture is an overall increase in protection for 
the critical digital systems and components, the change does not 
adversely affect the function of any safety-related SSC as to how 
they are operated, maintained, modified, tested or inspected. As a 
result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced, and the change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

Milestone 6

    The proposed amendment would [modify] the scope of the 
[security] controls to be implemented for target set equipment by 
December 31, 2012. The [site-specific change] to the Cyber Security 
Plan Implementation Schedule [will continue to provide a high degree 
of protection against cyber-related attacks that could lead to 
radiological sabotage. In addition, existing programs that are 
currently in place at Susquehanna (e.g., physical protection, 
maintenance and work management, and configuration management, 
operations experience, etc.) provide a high degree of operational 
and management protection]. This [modification] does not result in 
the need for any new or different FSAR design basis accident 
analysis. In addition, the [modification] does not introduce new 
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and 
no new equipment failure modes are created. Finally, the 
[modification] does not affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of this proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.

Overall Conclusion

    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.

Milestone 3

    The proposed amendment changes some details of the architecture 
to be used to provide protection against cyber attacks at 
Susquehanna. The proposed modification to the cyber security 
architecture is an overall increase in protection for the critical 
digital systems and components. Plant safety margins are established 
through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system 
settings, and safety limits specified in the technical 
specifications. Since the proposed modification to the cyber 
security architecture is an overall increase in protection for the 
critical digital systems, there is no adverse change to these 
established safety margins as result of the proposed modification, 
and the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.

Milestone 6

    The proposed amendment would [modify] the scope of the 
[security] controls to be implemented for target set equipment by 
December 31, 2012. Plant safety margins are established through 
limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, 
and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The 
[site-specific change] to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule [will continue to provide a high degree of protection 
against cyber-related attacks that could lead to radiological 
sabotage. In addition, existing programs that are currently in place 
at Susquehanna (e.g., physical protection, maintenance and work 
management, and configuration management, operations experience, 
etc.) provide a high degree of operational and management 
protection]. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this [modification], the proposed change does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Overall Conclusion

    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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2011, as supplemented 
January 26, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee's application 
requests the NRC review and approval for adoption of a new fire 
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 
CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.205, Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified 
non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Publicly available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML11321A172 and ML12031A149. As required by 
10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of 
no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of VCSNS in accordance with the proposed amendment 
does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBA) at VCSNS. The 
applicable accident associated with this license amendment request 
(LAR) is a fire. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect 
accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform 
their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor 
and to maintain it in an Appendix R safe shutdown (SD) condition 
will remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit VCSNS to adopt a new 
fire protection (FP) licensing basis which complies with the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National 
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

[[Page 48562]]

805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify FP systems and features that are an acceptable 
alternative to the Appendix R FP 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 risk-
informed, performance-based (RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have 
been met. NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable 
alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 
General Design Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and 
meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing FP regulations and 
guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals, 
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in 
Chapter 1 of the standard and, 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 this amendment does not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains 
capable of performing the assumed function.
    Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased with the implementation of this 
amendment.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of VCSNS in accordance with the proposed amendment 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or 
previously analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the 
evaluation of DBAs documented in the FSAR. The proposed change does 
not alter the requirements or function for systems required during 
accident conditions. Implementation of the new FP licensing basis 
which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and 
the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in new or 
different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor 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 shut down the reactor and maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit VCSNS to adopt a new 
FP licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC 
considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and 
performance criteria for licensees to identify FP systems and 
features that are an acceptable alternative to the Appendix R FP 
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004).
    The requirements in NFPA 805 address only FP and the impacts of 
fire on the plant have already been evaluated. Based on this, the 
implementation of this amendment does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve new 
failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a new accident.
    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 proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of VCSNS 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 UFSAR. 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 this amendment is to permit VCSNS to adopt a new 
FP licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC 
considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and 
performance criteria for licensees to identify FP systems and 
features that are an acceptable alternative to the Appendix R FP 
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 methods do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are 
evaluated to ensure that risk and safety margins are kept within 
acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and the 
common defense and security because the overall approach of NFPA 805 
is consistent with the key principles for evaluating license basis 
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the defense-
in-depth philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
    Margins previously established for the VCSNS FP program in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(b) and Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 are 
not significantly reduced.
    Therefore, this LAR does not result in a 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire; NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, 
Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Rockingham County, New 
Hampshire; PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania; South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina 
Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    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

[[Page 48563]]

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 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The 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 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of July 2012.

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

   ATTACHMENT 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
                           in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Day                             Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................  Publication of Federal Register
                                        notice of hearing and
                                        opportunity to petition for
                                        leave to intervene, including
                                        order with instructions for
                                        access requests.
10...................................  Deadline for submitting requests
                                        for access to Sensitive
                                        Unclassified Non-Safeguards
                                        Information (SUNSI) with
                                        information: supporting the
                                        standing of a potential party
                                        identified by name and address;
                                        describing the need for the
                                        information in order for the
                                        potential party to participate
                                        meaningfully in an adjudicatory
                                        proceeding.
60...................................  Deadline for submitting petition
                                        for intervention containing: (i)
                                        Demonstration of standing; (ii)
                                        all contentions whose
                                        formulation does not require
                                        access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
                                        petition for intervention; +7
                                        requestor/petitioner reply).

[[Page 48564]]

 
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. 2012-18758 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P