[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61433-61443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24509]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0225]
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 November 8, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 10, 2012. Any potential party as
defined in section 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
a(10 CFR), who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request
document access by October 19, 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-
0225. 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-2012-0225. 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-2012-0225 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-2012-0225.
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-2012-0225 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
[[Page 61434]]
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 and 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 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, 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
[[Page 61435]]
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC'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
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.
[[Page 61436]]
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 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].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: August 10, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated September 4, 2012. Publicly available versions are in
ADAMS at Accession Nos. ML12240A053 and ML12255A278, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the basis and description for Milestones 6 and
7 of the licensee's Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 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:
Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the Implementation Schedule of
the PVNGS CSP. Implementation of the CSP itself does not involve any
modifications to the safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The Implementation Schedule for the CSP describes
how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented. The
revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule will have no appreciable
negative effect on the ability to identify, evaluate, and mitigate
cyber attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack
threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from
cyber attacks. The revision of the CSP Implementation Schedule will
not alter previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs
as to how they are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule
continues to provide assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 73.54 with a
revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule does not result in the
need for any new or different UFSAR design basis accident analysis.
It does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms,
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this
proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature and would not alter the way any safety-
related SSC functions and would not alter the way the plant is
operated. The proposed change provides an acceptable, interim level
of ``high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks.''
The proposed revision would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
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: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2012, with supplement dated
September 5, 2012. Publicly available versions of the letters dated
July 31 and September 5, 2012, are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML12262A372 and ML12251A010, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the license conditions associated with the
implementation of the new fire protection program based on the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard NFPA-805.
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.
Operation of ONS in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBA) at ONS. The
proposed amendment involves License Condition completion date
changes only. It does not adversely affect accident initiators nor
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the
facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function.
SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in
a safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing
their design functions.
[[Page 61437]]
Therefore, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of ONS in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously
analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the evaluation
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment involves
License Condition completion date changes only. It does not alter
the requirements or function for systems required during accident
conditions, nor will it result in new or different accidents. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the
facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the
ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to
safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of ONS in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment involves License Condition completion date
changes only. It does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their
design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and
to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12178A412.
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 August 19, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11152A011).
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
do 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 No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12181A348.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 234 to the Facility
Operating License dated July 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML111800021), which approved the Waterford 3 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. ML110950122), was utilized, as a portion
of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation report provided by
Amendment No. 234. 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
[[Page 61438]]
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
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.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 21, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12178A384.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
changes would revise Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule
Milestone No. 6 and the existing license conditions in the renewed
facility operating licenses for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2. 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 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 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.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12262A480.
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 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP),
Units 1 and 2. Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) 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 28, 2011
[[Page 61439]]
(Amendment Nos. 315 and 299, for CNP 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, I&M is requesting an amendment to the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses for CNP Units 1 and 2, as it relates to the
Physical Protection license condition associated with the CNP 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 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 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 [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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 27, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12187A187.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 238 to the Renewed
Facility Operating License for CNS, dated July 27, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML111801081), which approved the CNS Cyber Security Plan
and associated implementation milestone schedule. The Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Schedule contained in the licensee's letter dated
March 30, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110910061), was utilized as a
portion of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation report provided by
Amendment No. 238. The proposed amendment does not change the
Implementation Schedule date; however, the licensee has proposed 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
(SSCs) 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 SSCs 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
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
[[Page 61440]]
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1
(VCSNS), Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12248A270.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
license amendment includes a proposed deviation to the scope of a Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Schedule milestone and a proposed revision
to the VCSNS Facility Operating License to include the proposed
deviation. Specifically, SCE&G 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident that has previously
been 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2012. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12227A884.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to reference and allow use of
Westinghouse WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum i-A, ``Qualification of the NEXUS
Nuclear Data Methodology,'' (Reference 1 of Enclosure 1) to determine
core operating limits.
The non-proprietary version is WCAP-16045-NP-A, Addendum i-A
(Reference 2 of Enclosure 1).
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 additional TS reference is not an accident
initiator.
The assumed accident initiators are not changed by the
introduction of the proposed TS reference. Therefore, operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The use of the proposed method will not significantly impact the
fission product inventory and transport assumptions in the current
licensing basis analyses. Therefore, the radiological consequences
of an accident previously evaluated will not increase.
The use of the proposed methods will not increase the
consequences of an accident because Limiting Conditions for
Operation will continue to restrict operation to within the regions
that provide acceptable results, and Reactor Protective System trip
setpoints will restrict plant transients so that the consequences of
accidents will not exceed the safety analysis acceptance criteria.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
This change does not alter the physical plant or modes of
operation. The plant systems will not be operated outside of design
limits, no different equipment will be operated, and system
interfaces will not change. Thus, the proposed change does not
adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures,
systems, and components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
All safety limit values and Limited Conditions of Operability
values given in the COLR will be calculated based on NRC approved
methodologies. These values ensure the plant is operating in
accordance with the TS.
Therefore, it is concluded the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 61441]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the
request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief
[[Page 61442]]
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 28th day of September 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 requestor/petitioner reply).
20....................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
requestor/petitioner to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2012-24509 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P