[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78402-78411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0272]
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2; Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3; St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; and
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment
request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 27, 2014. A request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by February
24, 2014. Any potential party, as defined in Sec. 2.4 of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI
is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by
January 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0272. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
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-2013-0272 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0272.
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 document (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-2013-0272 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.
[[Page 78403]]
The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as
well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. 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 NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to 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 petitions for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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 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
[[Page 78404]]
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 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's 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 NRC's guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[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.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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
[[Page 78405]]
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 three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
[email protected].
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP), Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2013. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13267A211 and ML13267A212.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request (LAR) proposes to transition the fire protection
licensing basis from 10 CFR 50.48(b) and (c), National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001
Edition. This LAR requests that the NRC review and approve for adoption
of a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), the guidance in Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' and NFPA
805. The LAR also follows the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy
Institute 04-02, 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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of the HBRSEP in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The
proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors
as described in the HBRSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), nor does it adversely alter design assumptions, conditions,
or configurations of the facility, and it does not adversely impact
the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
changes do not affect the way in which safety-related systems
perform their functions as required by the accident analysis. The
SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in
a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit HBRSEP to adopt a new
risk-informed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis
that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), as
well as the guidance contained in RG 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, fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
risk assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to
10 CFR Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing
fire protection regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-
depth along with the goals, performance objectives, and performance
criteria specified in NFPA 805, Chapter 1. In addition, if there are
any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk as a result of
the transition to NFPA 805, the increase will be small, governed by
the delta risk requirements of NFPA 805, and consistent with the
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on the above, the implementation of this amendment to
transition the Fire Protection Plan at HBRSEP to one based on NFPA
805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), does not result in a
significant increase in the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
In addition, all equipment required to mitigate an accident
remains capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased with the implementation of this amendment.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of HBRSEP 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 consequences was
included in the evaluation of design basis accidents (DBA)
documented in the UFSAR as a part of the transition to NFPA 805. The
proposed amendment does not impact these accident analyses. The
proposed change does not alter the requirements or functions for
systems required during accident conditions, nor does it alter the
required mitigation capability of the fire protection program, or
its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the
licensing basis analyses and/or DBA radiological consequences
evaluations.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, or conditions of the
facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the
ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to
maintain the unit in a safe and stable condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit HBRSEP 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 Revision
1 of RG 1.205. As indicated in the Statements of Consideration, the
NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features.
The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire effects on the plant have been evaluated. The
proposed fire protection program changes do not involve new failure
mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different
kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the UFSAR. Based
on this, as well as the discussion above, the implementation of this
amendment to transition the Fire Protection Plan at HBRSEP to one
based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), 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.
Operation of HBRSEP in accordance with the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The
transition to a new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection
licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) 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 in the UFSAR to mitigate accidents. The proposed
change does not adversely impact
[[Page 78406]]
systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and maintain the
plant in a safe shutdown condition. In addition, the proposed
amendment will not result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without
implementation of appropriate compensatory measures. The purpose of
the proposed amendment is to permit HBRSEP 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 RG 1.205. The NRC
considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire protection features (69 FR
33536, June 16, 2004).
The risk evaluations for plant changes, in part as they relate
to the potential for reducing a safety margin, were measured
quantitatively for acceptability using the delta risk guidance
contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, which may include
engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire
modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the
performance-based methods of NFPA 805 do not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
As such, the proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk
and safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Based on the
above, the implementation of this amendment to transition the Fire
Protection Plan at HBRSEP to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.48(c), will not significantly reduce 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 10, 2013. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13175A109.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1)
Increase the allowable as-found safety relief valve (SRV) and safety
valve (SV) lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) increase the required number of operable SRVs and SVs
from 11 to 12; and (3) increase the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System
pump discharge pressure from 1255 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
to 1275 psig.
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: (1) Revise Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.1 to increase the allowable as-
found Safety Relief Valve (SRV) and Safety Valve (SV) lift setpoint
tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) revise TS
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 to increase the
required number of operable SRVs and SVs from 11 to 12; and; (3)
revise TS SR 3.1.7.8 to increase the SLC System pump discharge
pressure from 1255 psig to 1275 psig. As analyzed in Attachment 3
[to the application dated June 10, 2013] (``Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station Units 2 and 3 Safety Valve Setpoint Tolerance Increase
Safety Analysis Report,'' NEDC-33533P, Revision 1, dated May 2013),
increasing the SRV/SV tolerance results in a change to the TS
requirements for the number of SRVs/SVs required to be operable.
However, this change does not alter the manner in which the valves
are operated. Consistent with current TS requirements, the proposed
change continues to require that the SRVs/SVs be adjusted to within
1% of their nominal lift setpoints following testing.
Since the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the
valves are operated, there is no significant impact on reactor
operation.
The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the
valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. The
proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems,
or components, with the exception of the SLC System pump discharge
pressure. The proposed change to increase the SLC System pump
pressure will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62,
``Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients
without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power
plants,'' continue to be met. The SLC System is not an initiator to
an accident; rather, the SLC System is used to mitigate an ATWS
event.
Therefore, these changes will not increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
Generic considerations related to the change in setpoint
tolerance were addressed in NEDC-31753P, ``BWROG [Boiling Water
Reactor Owners Group] In-Service Pressure Relief Technical
Specification Revision Licensing Topical Report,'' and were reviewed
and approved by the USNRC in a safety evaluation dated March 8,
1993. General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has completed
plant-specific analyses to assess the impact of the setpoint
tolerance increase on Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS),
Units 2 and 3. The plant specific evaluations, required by the
USNRC's safety evaluation and performed to support this proposed
change, show that there is no change to the design core thermal
limits and adequate margin to the reactor vessel pressure limits
using a 3% lift setpoint tolerance. These analyses also
show that operation of Emergency Core Cooling Systems is not
affected, and the containment response following a Loss-of-Coolant
Accident (LOCA) is acceptable. The plant systems associated with
these proposed changes are capable of meeting applicable design
basis requirements and retain the capability to mitigate the
consequences of accidents described in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR).
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: (1) Revise TS SR 3.4.3.1 to increase the
allowable as-found SRV and SV lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) revise TS Limiting Conditions for
Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 to increase the required number of operable
SRVs and SVs from 11 to 12; and; (3) revise TS SR 3.1.7.8 to
increase the SLC System pump discharge pressure from 1255 psig to
1275 psig. The proposed change to increase the SLC System pump
pressure will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 continue
to be met. The proposed change to increase the SRV/SV tolerance was
developed in accordance with the provisions contained in the USNRC
safety evaluation for NEDC-31753P. Additionally, Attachment 3 [to
the application dated June 10, 2013] analyzes the tolerance increase
which results in the increase in the required number of SRVs/SVs
necessary to remain operable. SRVs/SVs installed in the plant
following testing or refurbishment will continue to meet the current
tolerance acceptance criteria of 1% of the nominal
setpoint. The proposed change does not affect the manner in which
the overpressure protection system is operated; therefore, there are
no new failure mechanisms for the overpressure protection system.
The proposed change does not involve physical changes to the
valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. There
is no alteration to the parameters within which the plant is
normally operated. As a result, no new failure modes are being
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 78407]]
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event.
The proposed change does not modify the safety limits or setpoints
at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the
requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment
assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. Additionally,
this change will ensure that the reactor steam dome pressure shall
be <=1325 psig as discussed in Safety Limit [SL] 2.1.2 (``Reactor
Coolant System Pressure SL''). The proposed change to increase the
SLC System pump discharge pressure will ensure that the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.62 continue to be met.
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: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Veronica Rodriguez.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant (PSL), Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 14, 2013. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML13088A173 and ML13170A156, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request (LAR) proposes to transition the fire protection
licensing basis from 10 CFR 50.48(b) and (c), National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001
edition. This LAR requests that the NRC review and approve for adoption
of a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), the guidance in Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-water Nuclear Power Plants,'' and NFPA
805. The LAR also follows the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy
Institute 04-02, 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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of PSL 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 (DBAs) at PSL. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the
facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function.
SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in
a safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing
their design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit PSL 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 Revision 1 of RG
1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance
criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and
features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Engineering analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been
performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based
(RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design
Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and meets the
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations
and guidance, achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals,
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in
Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increase in net change in core
damage frequency associated with this License Amendment Request
(LAR) submittal is consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal
Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) allows self-approval of fire
protection program changes post-transition. If there are any
increases post-transition in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk,
the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the
Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains
capable of performing the assumed function.
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased with the implementation of this
amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of PSL 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 change does not alter
the requirements or function for systems required during accident
conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing
basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and
(c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in
new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit PSL 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 Revision 1 of RG
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR
33536; June 16, 2004).
The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a
new accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of this amendment.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of PSL 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
[[Page 78408]]
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 function.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit PSL 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 Revision 1 of RG
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR
33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, which may include
engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire
modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the
performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are
evaluated to ensure that the risk and safety margins are kept within
acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and the
common defense and security because the overall approach of NFPA 805
is consistent with the key principles for evaluating license basis
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the defense-
in-depth (DID) philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
Margins previously established for the PSL program in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.48(b) and Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 are not
significantly reduced.
Therefore, this LAR does not result in a reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida
33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated October 3, 2013. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML131960159 and ML13277A457, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) (security-
related). The amendment would permit the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (the licensee) to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis
based on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805,
``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water
Reactor Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition, at Diablo Canyon Power
Plant, Units 1 and 2, that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, of
Revision 1 ``Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection for
Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' December 2009.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) 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
(DBA) at DCPP. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect
accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their design functions. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor
and to maintain it in a safe shutdown (SSD) condition have been
identified and remain available to perform their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt
a new Fire Protection (FP) licensing basis which complies with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify FP requirements that are an acceptable
alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to
demonstrate that the deterministic and/or risk-informed, performance
based (RI-PB) requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to
10 CFR Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing FP
regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and
safety margin, and the goals, performance objectives, and
performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of the standard and, if
there are any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the
increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the
Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the design function. The proposed amendment will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological
dose criteria will continue to be met. The consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not increased with the
implementation of the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the transition to NFPA 805 create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of DCPP 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 off-site dose was included in the evaluation
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter
the requirements or function for systems required during accident
conditions. Implementation of the new FP licensing basis which
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in new or
different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain
it in a SSD condition remain capable of performing their design
functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt
a new FP licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10
CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The
NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify FP requirements that
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R
required FP features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may
[[Page 78409]]
include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments,
and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate
that the performance based requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only FP and the impacts of
fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated. Based on
this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. No new accident scenarios, transient
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be
introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse
effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a
result of this amendment. Therefore, the probability of a new or
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated is not
credible with the implementation of this amendment.
Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of DCPP in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
risk evaluation of plant changes, as appropriate, were measured
quantitatively for acceptability using the [Delta]CDF and
[Delta]LERF [large early release frequency] criteria from Section
5.3.5 of NEI 04-02, Revision 2, and RG 1.205, Revision 1. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The UFSAR 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. This amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to
maintain it in a SSD condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt
a new FP licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10
CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The
NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify FP requirements that
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R
required FP features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to
demonstrate that the RI-PB requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.
Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant (PSL), Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing 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 of this notice 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
[[Page 78410]]
as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the
requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access
to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the
date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the
deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice
of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December, 2013.
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; and
(ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require
access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
petition for intervention; +7
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/
requestor 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.
[[Page 78411]]
>A + 60.............................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2013-30843 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P