[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55864-55877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22307]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0208]
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 October 11, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by November 13, 2012. Any potential party as
defined in Section 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request
document access by September 21, 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-
0208. 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-2012-0208. 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-2012-0208 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-2012-0208.
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-2012-0208 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for
[[Page 55865]]
submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
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's 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
[[Page 55866]]
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's 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's 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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from
[[Page 55867]]
information previously available; and (iii) the filing has been
submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the
subsequent information.
For further details with respect to these amendment actions, see
the applications for amendment which are 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].
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12191A122.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 171 to the Facility
Operating License for the River Bend Station (RBS), dated July 29, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML111940200), which approved the RBS Cyber
Security Plan and associated implementation milestone schedule. The
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule contained in the licensee's
letter dated April 4, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11103A043), was
utilized, as a portion of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation
report provided by Amendment No. 171. The proposed amendment does not
change the Implementation Schedule date, but Entergy has proposed this
amendment to implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the
approved Implementation Schedule.
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 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 which 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 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 which 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML120400144.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would allow the licensee to expand the operating domain by
the implementation of Average Power Range Monitor/Rod Block Monitor/
Technical Specifications/Power Range Neutron Monitoring/Maximum
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (ARTS/PRNM/MELLLA). The Neutron
Monitoring System would be modified by replacing the analog Average
Power Range Monitor (APRM) subsystem with the Nuclear Measurement
Analysis and Control (NUMAC) Power Range Neutron Monitoring (PRNM)
System. The licensee would expand the operating domain to Maximum
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) and make changes to certain
allowable values (AVs) and limits and to the Technical Specifications
(TSs). The changes to the TSs include the adoption of Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-493, ``Clarify
Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System
Setting] Functions,'' Option A surveillance notes. Furthermore, the
amendment would allow a change in the licensing basis to support
Anticipated Transient without Scram (ATWS) accident mitigation with one
Standby Liquid Control (SLC) pump instead of two.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, by classification of
change, which is presented below. The proposed NSHC for PRNM system
upgrade is presented first, followed by the proposed NSHC for the
implementation of ARTS/MELLLA.
PRNM System Upgrade
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis
Accidents occurring is not affected by the PRNM system, as the PRNM
system does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an
accident. The
[[Page 55868]]
regulatory criteria established for plant equipment such as the
APRM, OPRM [Oscillation Power Range Monitor], and RBM [Rod Block
Monitor] systems will be maintained with the installation of the
upgraded PRNM system. Scram setpoints in the PRNM system will be
established so that all analytical limits are met.
The unavailability of the new system will be equal to or less
than the existing system and, as a result, the scram reliability
will be equal to or better than the existing system. No new
challenges to safety-related equipment will result from the PRNM
system modification.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace the currently installed and NRC
approved OPRM Option III long-term stability solution with an NRC
approved Option III long-term stability solution digitally
integrated into the PRNM equipment. The PRNM hardware incorporates
the OPRM Option III detect and suppress solution reviewed and
approved by the NRC in References 1, 2, 3, and 4 [References in
Attachment 2 of the License Amendment Request] Licensing Topical
Reports [(LTRs)], the same as the currently installed separate OPRM
System. The OPRM meets the [General Design Criteria (GDCs)] 10,
``Reactor Design,'' and 12, ``Suppression of Reactor Power
Oscillations,'' requirements by automatically detecting and
suppressing design basis thermal hydraulic oscillations to protect
specified fuel design limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above, the operation of the new PRNM system and
replacement of the currently installed OPRM Option III stability
solution with the Option III OPRM function integrated into the PRNM
equipment will not increase 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 components of the PRNM system will be supplied to equivalent
or better design and qualification criteria than is currently
required for the plant. Equipment that could be affected by PRNM
system has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related
equipment lineup, accident scenario, or system interaction mode was
identified. Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will not adversely
affect plant equipment.
The new PRNM system uses digital equipment that has ``control'',
processing points and software controlled digital processing
compared to the existing PRNM system that uses mostly analog and
discrete component processing (excluding the existing OPRM).
Specific failures of hardware and potential software common cause
failures are different from the existing system. The effects of
potential software common cause failure are mitigated by specific
hardware design and system architecture as discussed in Section 6.0
of the NUMAC PRNM LTR reference [in the license amendment request].
Failure(s) of the system have the same overall effect as the present
design. No new or different kind of accident is introduced.
Therefore, the PRNM system will not adversely affect plant
equipment.
The currently installed APRM System is replaced with a NUMAC
PRNM system that performs the existing power range monitoring
functions and adds an OPRM to react automatically to potential
reactor thermal-hydraulic instabilities.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes associated with the NUMAC PRNM system
retrofit implement the constraints of the NUMAC PRNM system design
and related stability analyses. The NUMAC PRNM system change does
not impact reactor operating parameters or the functional
requirements of the PRNM system. The replacement equipment continues
to provide information, enforce control rod blocks, and initiate
reactor scrams under appropriate specified conditions. The proposed
change does not reduce safety margins. The replacement PRNM
equipment has improved channel trip accuracy compared to the current
analog system, and meets or exceeds system requirements previously
assumed in setpoint analysis. Thus, the ability of the new equipment
to enforce compliance with margins of safety equals or exceeds the
ability of the equipment which it replaces.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a
margin of safety.
ARTS/MELLLA Implementation
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP
[Simulated Thermal Power] setdown requirement and substitutes power
and flow dependent adjustments to the [Maximum Critical Power Ratio
(MCPR)] and Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) thermal limits.
Thermal limits will be determined using NRC approved analytical
methods. The proposed change will have no effect upon any accident
initiating mechanism. The power and flow dependent adjustments will
ensure that the MCPR SL [Safely Limit] will not be violated as a
result of any [anticipated operational occurrence (AOO)], and that
the fuel thermal and mechanical design bases will be maintained.
The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and by the replacement of the current
flow-biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. As discussed in the
Technical Evaluation Section 1.0 [in the license amendment request],
and Attachment 1 [to the license amendment request], operation in
the MELLLA expanded operating domain will not increase the
probability or consequences of previously analyzed accidents. The
APRM and RBM are not involved in the initiation of any accident, and
the APRM flow-biased STP function is not credited in any CGS
[Columbia Generating Station] safety analyses. The proposed change
will not introduce any initial conditions that would result in NRC
approved criteria being exceeded and the APRM and RBM will remain
capable of performing their design functions.
The SLC system is provided to shutdown the reactor without
reliance on control rod movement, to mitigate anticipated transients
without scram (ATWS) events and provide suppression pool pH control
following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. As such, SLC is not
considered an initiator of an ATWS event, LOCA or any other analyzed
accident. The revised SLC pump flow rate and increased Boron-10
enrichment continue to meet the shutdown requirement of SLC. The
changes do not reduce the ability of the SLC system to respond to or
mitigate an ATWS event or LOCA. Nor do these changes increase the
likelihood of a system malfunction that could increase the
consequences of an accident.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
changes do 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 eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP setdown
requirement and substitutes power and flow dependent adjustments to
the MCPR and LHGR thermal limits. Because the thermal limits will
continue to be met, no analyzed transient event will escalate into a
new or different type of accident due to the initial starting
conditions permitted by the adjusted thermal limits.
The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and the replacement of the current flow-
biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. Changing the formulation
for the flow-biased STP AV and changing from a flow-biased RBM to a
power-dependent RBM does not change their respective functions and
manner of operation. The change does not introduce a sequence of
events or introduce a new failure mode that would create a new or
different type of accident. While not credited for MCPR [safety
limit (SL)] protection, the APRM flow-biased STP AV and associated
scram trip setpoint will continue to provide a redundant trip for
the credited trip functions (such as APRM Fixed Neutron Flux--High
or Reactor Pressure--High). The power-dependent RBM will prevent rod
withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod block setpoint is
reached, thus protecting
[[Page 55869]]
MCPR SL. No new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators are being introduced by the proposed change. In addition,
operating within the expanded power flow map will not require any
systems, structures or components to function differently than
previously evaluated and will not create initial conditions that
would result in a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the SLC pump flow rate credited in the
ATWS analysis, in conjunction with the increased enrichment of
Boron-10 in the sodium pentaborate solution, is consistent with the
functional requirements of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 50.62). These
proposed changes do not involve the installation of any new or
different type of equipment, do not introduce any new modes of plant
operation, and do not change any methods governing normal plant
operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP setdown
requirement and substitutes power and flow dependent adjustments to
the MCPR and LHGR thermal limits. Replacement of the APRM setdown
requirement with power and flow dependent adjustments to the MCPR
and LHGR thermal limits will continue to ensure that margins to the
fuel cladding SL are preserved during operation at other than rated
conditions. Thermal limits will be determined using NRC approved
analytical methods. The power and flow dependent adjustments will
ensure that the MCPR SL will not be violated as a result of any AOO,
and that the fuel thermal and mechanical design bases will be
maintained.
The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and the replacement of the current flow-
biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. The APRM flow-biased STP
AV and associated scram trip setpoint will continue to initiate a
scram, providing a redundant trip that is not credited for
protection of MCPR SL. The RBM will continue to prevent rod
withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod block setpoint is
reached. The MCPR and LHGR thermal limits will be developed to
ensure that fuel thermal mechanical design bases remain within the
licensing limits during a control rod withdrawal error event and to
ensure that the MCPR SL will not be violated as a result of a
control rod withdrawal error event. Operation in the expanded
operating domain will not alter the manner in which SLs, Limiting
Safety System Setpoints (LSSSs), or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. AOOs and postulated accidents within the
expanded operating domain will continue to be evaluated using NRC
approved methods. The 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria for the
performance of the ECCS [emergency core cooling system] following
postulated LOCAs will continue to be met.
The proposed change to the SLC flow rate, in conjunction with
the increased Boron-10 enrichment in the sodium pentaborate
solution, credited in the ATWS analysis continues to meet accident
analyses limits. The proposed change is consistent with the
functional requirements of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 50.62) and the flow
rate credited for LOCA suppression pool pH control. The ability of
the SLC system to respond to and mitigate an ATWS event or LOCA is
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2 and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 14, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A050.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule
as approved in license amendments issued on August 2, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11152A027).
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 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 which 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. The proposed 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 proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12184A149,
ML12177A363, and ML12177A365.
[[Page 55870]]
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The NRC
issued the Palisades Cyber Security Plan and associate Implementation
Schedule on July 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111801243). The
amendment would implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the
approved Implementation Schedule.
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 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 which 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 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 which 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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A047.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule
as approved in license amendment issued on July 20, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11152A043).
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 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 which 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. The proposed 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 proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 2, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML121910298.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
[[Page 55871]]
information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Schedule as approved in license amendment issued on
July 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A013).
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 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 which 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. The proposed 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 proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: June 18, 2012. A publicly available
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12192A102.
Description of amendment request: This application contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Entergy, the
licensee, is planning to implement the requirements of Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 6, approved by the NRC staff by
letter dated July 27, 2011 (Amendment Nos. 244 and 294, for Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, respectively), in a slightly different
manner than described in the approved Implementation Schedule. Although
no change to the Implementation Schedule date is proposed, the change
to the description of the milestone activity is considered to be a
change to the Implementation Schedule, and in accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, Entergy is submitting this
request for an amendment to the physical protection license condition
in the facility operating licenses.
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 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 which 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 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 which 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 established safety margins as
a 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
[[Page 55872]]
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: June 27, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12215A381.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 186 to the Facility
Operating License for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), dated July 27,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111940165), which approved the GGNS Cyber
Security Plan and associated implementation milestone schedule. The
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule contained in the licensee's
letter dated April 4, 2011 (ADAMS Access No. ML11103A042), was
utilized, as a portion of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation
report provided by Amendment No. 186. The proposed amendment does not
change the Implementation Schedule date, but Entergy has proposed this
amendment to implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the
approved Implementation Schedule.
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 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 which 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 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 which 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 established safety margins as
a 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating (TPN), Units 3 and 4, Florida City,
Florida
Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012. A publicly available
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12227A452.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would change the cyber security plan implementation schedule
for Milestone 6 at TPN, Units 3 and 4. The NRC issued license Amendment
Nos. 245 and 241 to the renewed facility operating licenses for TPN
Units 3 and 4, respectively, which approved the TPN Cyber Security Plan
and associated implementation milestone schedule.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee 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 scope change to Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule milestone 6 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 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 scope change to Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule milestone 6 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 amendment does not create a possibility
for an accident of a new or different type than those previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment 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 scope change
to Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule milestone 6 is
administrative in nature. Because there is no change to these
established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
[[Page 55873]]
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012. A publicly available
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12230A072.
Description of amendment request: This application contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). NextEra
Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, (the licensee), is planning to implement the
requirements of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone
6, approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated July 29, 2011 (Amendment
No. 278, for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)), in a slightly
different manner than described in the approved Implementation
Schedule. Although no change to the Implementation Schedule date is
proposed, the change to the description of the milestone activity is
conservatively considered to be a change to the Implementation
Schedule, and in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and
50.90, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold is submitting this request for an
amendment to the facility operating license for DAEC.
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: Mr. Mitchell S. Ross, P.O. Box 14000 Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: June 18, 2012.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would make changes to the cyber security plan implementation
schedule for Milestone 6 at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units
1 and 2. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra) is planning to
implement the requirements of Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule Milestone 6, as approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated
July 21, 2011 (Amendment Nos. 243 and 247, for PBNP Units 1 and 2,
respectively), in a slightly different manner than described in the
approved Implementation Schedule. Although no change to the
Implementation Schedule is proposed, the change to the description of
the milestone activity is conservatively considered to be a change to
the Implementation Schedule; therefore, in accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, NextEra is requesting an
amendment to the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for PBNP Units 1
and 2, as it relates to the Physical Protection license condition
associated with the PBNP Cyber Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 amendment 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 change does not alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or
affect the function
[[Page 55874]]
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 amendment 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: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2012. A publicly available
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12170A868.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment is for adoption of a new risk-informed performance-based (RI-
PB) fire protection licensing basis which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c); the guidance in
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1,
and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-
Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric
Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition. This amendment request also follows
the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-02, ``Guidance for
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program
under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit NMP1 to adopt
a new fire protection licensing basis that 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 Part 50, Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Operation of NMP1 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
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses
of design basis accidents at NMP1. 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
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 UFSAR. Structures, systems,
or components required to safely shutdown the reactor and to
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of
performing their design functions.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR
Part 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 or risk, the increase will be
small and consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal
Policy.
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, and equipment required to mitigate an accident remains
capable of performing the assumed function(s). The applicable
radiological dose criteria will continue to be met.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment 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 kind of accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of NMP1 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 in such a manner as to
introduce new or different accident initiators. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the ability of structures,
systems, or components to perform their design function. Structures,
systems, or components required to safely shutdown the reactor and
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been
evaluated. Thus, implementation of the proposed amendment would not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident beyond
those already analyzed in the UFSAR. No new accident scenarios,
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single
failures will be introduced, and there will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of the
proposed amendment.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment 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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit NMP1 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
[[Page 55875]]
an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required
fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
The overall approach of NFPA 805 is 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. 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.
Operation of NMP1 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 structures, systems, or
components to perform their design function. Structures, systems, or
components required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment 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: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: July 26, 2012. A publicly available
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A394.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would make changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station and
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses, to revise the physical protection license condition
as it relates to the cyber security plan. Specifically, PSEG proposes a
change to the scope of Implementation Milestone 6 to apply to only
technical cyber security controls.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule are administrative in nature. The changes do 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 proposed
changes do not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
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 changes to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule are administrative in nature. The proposed changes do 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 proposed
changes do not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes 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.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2 and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, Vernon, Vermont
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
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
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-
251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4, Florida City,
Florida
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301,
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks,
Manitowac County, Wisconsin
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and
2, Salem County, New Jersey
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to
[[Page 55876]]
documents containing sensitive unclassified information (including
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 access to SUNSI. 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) above, as applicable, the NRC staff will determine
within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
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 requisite need, 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 5th day of September, 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[[Page 55877]]
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,'' no ``need to
know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a
motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy
of access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other
designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC
staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
for any party to the proceeding whose interest
independent of the proceeding would be harmed
by the release of the information to file a
motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's grant of access.
30.................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file motion
for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to
file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
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. 2012-22307 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P