[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11143-11151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04302]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0029]
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 six amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3;
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; McGuire Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Palisades
Nuclear Plant; and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. 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 March 31, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by April 28, 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 March 10, 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-2014-0029. 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-A44MP, 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-2014-0029 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-2014-0029.
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-2014-0029 in the subject line of your
[[Page 11144]]
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC 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'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 11145]]
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 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 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 E-Filing system. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
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
[[Page 11146]]
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the 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].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. 50-528, 50-529, and
50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: November 20, 2013, which is publicly
available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13329A036, as supplemented by
letter dated November 20, 2013, portions of which are publicly
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13329A700 and ML13365A207.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would modify the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units
1, 2, and 3, moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) technical
specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SR) associated with
implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, ``Startup Test Activity Reduction
Program,'' February 2005, as described in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-486, Revision 2, ``Revise MTC
Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-
16011).'' The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41360), on possible
amendments adopting TSTF-486, Revision 2, including a model safety
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process
(CLIIP). The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of
the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on September 6, 2007 (72 FR 51259). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application dated November 20, 2013.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would eliminate the
measurement of an end-of-cycle (EOC) MTC if the beginning-of-cycle
(BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted value
as described in TSTF-406, Revision 2, ``Predicting End-of-Cycle MTC and
Deleting Need for End-of-Cycle MTC Verification.'' Regarding TSTF-406,
Revision 2, the licensee included a proposed NSHC in the license
amendment request.
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. Each of the two items described above is addressed
individually under each of the three standards, as presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
TSTF-486
Response: No.
The proposed change generically implements MTC SR changes
associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, STAR Program.
WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for
startup testing. The consequences of an accident after adopting
TSTF-486 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior
to adoption.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
TSTF-406
Response: No.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-
cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if the
beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance
to the predicted value. MTC is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The EOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The analysis
presented in the Topical Report determined that the EOC MTC will be
within limits if the BOC measured MTC values are within a given
tolerance of the measured values. Therefore, the EOC MTC will
continue to be within limits and the consequences of accidents will
continue to be as previously evaluated. Therefore, the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased
by this change.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does 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?
TSTF-486
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and
will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an
accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents
previously analyzed.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
TSTF-406
Response: No.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted
value. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
TSTF-486
Response: No.
TSTF-486 provides the means and standardized wording for
[Combustion Engineering (CE) Standard Technical Specification (STS)]
plants implementing the previously approved WCAP-16011-P-A alternate
MTC verification at startup. MTC is a parameter controlled in the
licensee's TS, including surveillance requirements. As stated
previously WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time
required for startup testing. The changes to NUREG-1432 proposed by
TSTF-486 have been reviewed for and found to be consistent with the
current NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A.
Therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable and do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
TSTF-406
Response: No.
[[Page 11147]]
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted
value. The Topical Report concluded that the risk of not measuring
the EOC MTC is acceptably small provided that the BOC measured
values are within a specific tolerance of the predicted values.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation,
P.O. Box 52034, Mail Stop 7602, Phoenix, Arizona, 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; and Docket
Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 14, 2013. A publicly available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13325B142.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1,
``Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics
Parameters Methodology.''
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 amendments involving methodology report DPC-NE-
3001-P, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis
Physics Parameters Methodology, support the use of revised
methodologies for simulating the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 events characterized by multidimensional
reactor transients, and for systematically confirming that reload
physics parameters important to UFSAR Chapter 15 transients and
accidents are bounded by values assumed in the licensing analyses.
The methodology report revision will be approved by the NRC prior to
implementation. The proposed amendments will have no impact upon the
probability of occurrence of any design basis accident. The proposed
amendments will not affect the performance of any plant equipment
used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There
will be no significant impact on the source term or pathways assumed
in accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be
violated and there will be no adverse effects on offsite or onsite
dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change the methods governing
normal plant operation; nor are the methods utilized to respond to
plant transients altered. In addition, the proposed methodology
changes will not create the potential for any new initiating events
or transients to occur in the actual physical plant.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed methodology revision will assure the acceptability of
analytical limits under normal, transient, and accident conditions.
The use of the proposed methodology revision once it has been
approved by the NRC will ensure that all applicable design and
safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers
will continue to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the preceding discussion, Duke Energy concludes that
the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration''
is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-03, 50-247, and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 20, 2013. A publicly available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13239A447.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would modify the operating license, pursuant to Section 161A
of the Atomic Energy Act, to permit the licensee's security personnel
to possess and use weapons, devices, ammunition, or other firearms,
notwithstanding state, local, and certain federal firearms laws that
may prohibit such use. The NRC refers to this authority as ``stand-
alone preemption authority.'' The licensee is seeking stand-alone
preemption authority for standard weapons presently in use at the
Indian Point facility in accordance with the Indian Point security
plans, namely semi-automatic assault rifles and extended magazines. The
weapons that are the subject of this amendment request do not include
enhanced weapons.
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[y] accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The LAR [license amendment request] does not require any plant
modifications, alter the plant configuration, require new plant
equipment to be installed, 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 adds a sentence to the IPEC [Indian Point
Energy Center] licenses to reflect the Section 161A preemption
authority granted by the Commission. The change is administrative
and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an[y]
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an[y]
accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 11148]]
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The LAR does not require any plant modifications, alter the
plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be installed,
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 adds a sentence to the IPEC licenses to
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the
Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the
possibility or [of] a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The LAR does not require any plant modifications, alter the
plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be installed,
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.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions
for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety limits
specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no
change to these established safety margins, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change adds a sentence to the IPEC licenses to
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the
Commission. The change is administrative and 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains,
New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 12, 2012, supplemented by
letters dated February 21, September 30, October 24, and December 2,
2013; the publicly-available version of each letter are available in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML12348A455, ML13079A090, ML13273A469,
ML13298A044, and ML13336A649.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would provide the NRC's approval for adoption of a new fire
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in
Sec. Sec. 50.48(a) and 50.48(c); and the guidance in Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.'' This
amendment request also follows the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 04-02, Revision 2, ``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed,
Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).'' Upon
approval, the PNP's fire protection program will transition to a new
Risk-Informed, Performance-Based (RI-PB) alternative in accordance with
10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by reference the National Fire
Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805). The NFPA 805 fire
protection program will supersede the current fire protection program
licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. 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 PNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not result in a significant increase the probability or consequences
of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not
affect accident initiators or precursors as described in the PNP
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 the proposed amendment is to permit PNP to adopt
a new risk-informed, performance based fire protection licensing
basis that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and
(c), as well as 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 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, including 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 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 the proposed amendment
to transition the fire protection plan at PNP 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, equipment required to mitigate an accident
remains capable of performing the assumed function.
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased with the implementation of this
amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of PNP 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 RG 1.205, Revision 1 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.
[[Page 11149]]
The purpose of this amendment is to permit ENO 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, Revision 1.
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 PNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their
design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and
to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design function.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit ENO 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, Revision 1.
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, including 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.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC., and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A338.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would change the Vermont Yankee Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date from
December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016. The proposed amendment would also
revise the existing operating license Security Plan license condition.
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 CSP [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 CSP 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 does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken
which provide adequate protection during this period of time.
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains,
New York, 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
[[Page 11150]]
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation; Arizona Public
Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County,
Arizona; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina;
and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50-03, 50-247, and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear
Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester County, New York; Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. and
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
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 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.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
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
[[Page 11151]]
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 21st day of February 2014.
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 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. 2014-04302 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P