[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19396-19405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06784]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0054]
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 Columbia Generating Station; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,
Units 1 and 2; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1; South Texas Project, Units
1 and 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3; and Wolf Creek
Generating 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 May 8, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 9, 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 April 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 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-2014-0054. 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-2014-0054 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this document by any
of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0054.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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-2014-0054 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 you
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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
[[Page 19397]]
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 a petition 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
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.
[[Page 19398]]
III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
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
ten 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 (1) request a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC'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 public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 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 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
[[Page 19399]]
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].
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: October 31, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13316A009.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.5 for the Low-Pressure Core Spray
(LPCS) and Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) pump flows.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would lower the required LPCI and LPCS flow
rates in SR 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.5. The requested changes do not serve
as initiators of any Columbia accident previously evaluated. The
existing ECCS-LOCA [emergency core cooling system--loss-of-coolant
accident] fuel analysis of record utilizes reduced analytical flow
rates that bound the proposed TS LPCI and LPCS flow rates. The
analysis demonstrates compliance with the ECCS acceptance criteria
in 10 CFR 50.46. The new minimum ECCS flow containment analysis also
utilizes reduced analytical flow rates that bound the proposed TS
LPCI and LPCS flow rates. This analysis demonstrates that the
results of the analysis do not exceed the design values specified in
the FSAR [final safety analysis report], which is consistent with
the acceptance criteria specified in SRP [Standard Review Plan,
NUREG-0800] 6.2.1.1.C. The accident probabilities are unaffected and
the consequences remain unchanged.
Therefore, there is no 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 analyzed?
Response: No.
There are no postulated hazards, new or different, contained in
this amendment. Analysis has determined that these changes have been
bounded by previous evaluations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes lower the TS SR flows for LPCI and LPCS by
3 [percent] and 2 [percent], respectively. The analytical values for
the LPCI and LPCS flows were reduced by 5 [percent] and 10
[percent], respectively, to ensure no margin of safety was impacted.
To ensure a bounding calculation, the minimum ECCS flow containment
analysis was performed with conservative assumptions and using NRC
approved methodologies previously accepted for use at Columbia by
the NRC. The proposed TS limiting flow rates provide adequate margin
to the analytical limits accounting for worst-case instrument
uncertainty and potential variation in supply voltage and frequency.
Therefore, the proposed change 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Luminant Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 4, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the
letters dated November 21, 2013, and February 4, 2014, are available in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13338A436 and ML14051A531.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the physical protection license condition in the
existing facility operating licenses and the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the Comanche Peak
Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Units 1 and 2, CSP Implementation Schedule
approved by the NRC staff by letter dated July 26, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML111780745).
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 amendment proposes a change to the CPNPP [Units 1 and 2],
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as
set forth in the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule.
The revision of the full implementation date for the CPNPP Cyber
Security Plan does not involve modifications to any safety-related
structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation
schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing the CPNPP CSP.
The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be
implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to
and including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby
achieving high assurance that the facility's digital computer and
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber
attacks. The revision of the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected.
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 implementation of the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan does not
introduce new equipment that could create a new or different kind of
accident, and no new equipment failure modes are created. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
are introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment
[[Page 19400]]
structure) to limit the level of radiation to the public. The
proposed amendment does not alter the way any safety-related SSC
functions and does not alter the way the plant is operated. The
Cyber Security Plan provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment does not
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the
above considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit
the level of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS), Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated January 24, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the
letters dated August 5, 2013, and January 24, 2014, are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13220A074 and ML14030A591.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the structural design basis for the reactor
coolant system piping described in Section 4.3.6 of the Fort Calhoun
Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. The amendment request is
related to the leak-before-break (LBB) application for the reactor
coolant system piping. To satisfy one of the commitments as part of its
license renewal application, the licensee submitted a plant-specific
LBB analysis before the period of extended operation, which began at
midnight, August 9, 2013.
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 overall performance of protection systems remains within the
bounds of the accident analyses. The design of the reactor
protective system (RPS) and engineered safety feature actuation
system (ESFAS) are unaffected and these systems will continue to
function consistent with their design basis. Design, material, and
construction standards are maintained.
At FCS, the bounding accident for pipe breaks is a large break
loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA). The consequences of a LBLOCA have
been previously evaluated and found acceptable. Since the attached
leak-before-break (LBB) methodology verifies the integrity of
reactor coolant system (RCS) piping, the probability of a previously
evaluated accident is not increased. The application of the LBB
methodology does not change the dose analysis associated with a
LBLOCA, and therefore, does not affect the consequences of an
accident. The proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or
change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence
evaluations in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced because of the proposed change. All systems,
structures, and components (SSCs) required for the mitigation of an
event remain capable of performing their design function. The
proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-related SSC and
does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related SSC. The methods by which safety-related SSCs perform their
safety functions are unchanged. This amendment will not affect the
normal method of power operation or change any operating parameters.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the
margin of safety described in the FCS Technical Specifications or
USAR. The proposed amendment does not involve a change to any of the
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system or the containment building). The operability requirements of
the Technical Specifications are consistent with the initial
condition assumptions of the safety analyses. The proposed change
does not affect any Technical Specification limiting conditions for
operation (LCO) requirements.
This proposed amendment uses LBB technology combined with
leakage monitoring to show that it is acceptable to exclude the
dynamic effects of pipe ruptures resulting from postulated breaks in
the reactor coolant primary loop piping from consideration in the
structural design basis for the period of extended operation. The
attached Westinghouse report demonstrates that the LBB margins
discussed in NUREG-1061, Volume 3 are satisfied.
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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: January 6, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14035A075.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
license amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1,
``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required
actions and allowed outage times for inoperable reactor trip breakers.
The proposed changes would revise the required actions to enhance plant
reliability by reducing exposure to unnecessary shutdowns and increase
operational flexibility by allowing more time to make required repairs
for inoperable reactor trip breakers consistent with allowed outage
times for associated logic trains. No modifications to setpoint
actuations, trip setpoint, surveillance requirements or channel
response that would affect the safety analyses are associated with the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes are consistent with requirements generically
approved as part of NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants, Revision 4 (TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System
Instrumentation'') (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1431/). Justification for the proposed changes is based
on Westinghouse Topical Report,
[[Page 19401]]
WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS
[Reactor Trip System] and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System] Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and
Completion Times,'' March 2003 (not publicly available).
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 overall reactor trip breaker performance will remain within
the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no
hardware changes are proposed. The reactor trip breakers will
continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design
basis.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators, and therefore do not increase the probability of any
accident previously evaluated. There will be no degradation in the
performance of or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on
safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident
situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating
parameters or accident mitigation performance. The proposed changes
will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in
the radiological consequence evaluations in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report.
The determination that the results of the proposed changes are
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluation (issued by
letter dated December 20, 2002) prepared for WCAP-15376-P-A, ``Risk-
Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals
and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and Completion Times.'' Implementation
of the proposed changes will result in an insignificant risk impact.
Applicability of these conclusions has been verified through
plant-specific reviews and implementation of the generic analysis
results in accordance with the respective NRC Safety Evaluation
conditions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in
which the Reactor Trip Breakers provide plant protection. The
proposed changes do not change the response of the plant to any
accidents. No design changes are associated with the proposed
changes.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed
changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
analyzed.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria as
stated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report are not impacted
by these changes. Redundant Reactor Trip Breaker features and
diverse trip features for each Reactor Trip Breaker are maintained.
All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator
actions credited in the accident analyses are unaffected by the
proposed change. The proposed changes will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
changes should enhance plant reliability by reducing exposure to
unnecessary shutdowns and increase operational flexibility by
allowing more time to make required repairs for inoperable reactor
trip breakers. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and
meets the acceptance criteria contained in NRC Regulatory Guides
1.174 and 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14015A403.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The TVA, in
its letter dated August 30, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13268A421),
identified the Alternative Leakage Treatment (ALT) Pathway as being in
a nonconforming/degraded condition. The TVA's corrective actions that
were outlined to change the ALT Pathway included modification of
licensing documents to show lower individual and total leakage rates
through the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs). The proposed license
amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.6.1.3, ``Primary
Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs).'' The amendments would decrease
the leakage rate through each MSIV and the combined leakage rate
through all four main steam lines.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change continues to use the main steam drain lines
to direct MSIV leakage to the main condenser, although at a lower
rate than is currently allowed. Therefore, the ALT Pathway takes
advantage of the large volume of the steam lines and condenser to
provide holdup and plate-out fission products that may leak through
the closed MSIVs. Additionally, the main steam lines, main steam
drain piping, and the main condenser continue to be used to mitigate
the consequences of an accident to limit potential doses below the
limits prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion area,
10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and in 10 CFR
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel.
The plant-specific radiological analysis has been re-evaluated
to ensure that the effects of the increase in the condenser bypass
flow and proposed decrease in MSIV leakage continues to maintain the
acceptance criteria in terms of offsite doses and main control room
dose. The analysis results comply with the dose limits prescribed in
10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii)
for the low population zone, and in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) for
control room personnel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to
plant safety related systems, structures, and components (SSCs) or
alter the modes of plant operation in a manner that is outside the
bounds of the current alternate leakage treatment pathway. Because
the safety and design requirements continue to be met and the
integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure boundary is
not challenged, no new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators are created, and there will
[[Page 19402]]
be no effect on the accident mitigating systems in a manner that
would significantly degrade the plant's response to an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.10, to
decrease the allowable MSIV leakage, and increase the condenser
bypass flow due to only crediting the passive ALT Pathway, does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
allowable leak rate specified for the MSIVs is used to quantify a
maximum amount of leakage assumed to bypass containment. The results
of the re-analysis supporting these changes were evaluated against
the dose limits contained in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion
area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and 10 CFR
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel. Margin relative to the
regulatory limits is maintained.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: August 13, 2013, as supplemented January
28, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the letters dated August 13,
2013, and January 28, 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML13247A076 and ML14035A224.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Safety Limits 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs;''
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.5, ``Loss of Power (LOP)
Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation;'' TS 3.4.1, ``RCS
Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB)
Limits;'' TS 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs);'' and
Specification 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to
replace the existing Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC)
methodology for performing core design, non-loss-of-coolant-accident
(non-LOCA) and LOCA safety analyses (for Post-LOCA Subcriticality and
Cooling only) with standard Westinghouse developed and NRC-approved
analysis methodologies. As part of the transition to the generic
Westinghouse NRC-approved methodologies, instrumentation setpoint and
control uncertainty calculations were performed based on the current
Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology. This amendment request also includes
the adoption of Option A of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
change traveler TSTF-493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of
Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System Setpoint]
Functions.'' In addition, the proposed amendment request revises the TS
definitions of DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131, and DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, and
Specification 5.5.12, ``Explosive Gas and Storage Tank Radioactivity
Monitoring Program,'' to revise the Wolf Creek Generating Station
(WCGS) licensing basis by adopting the Alternative Source Term (AST)
radiological analysis methodology in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67,
``Accident source term.'' This amendment request represents a full
scope implementation of the AST as described in NRC Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' Revision 0 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML003716792). In conjunction with the full scope
implementation of the AST, the proposed amendment request includes
changes to adopt TSTF-51-A, Revision 2, ``Revise Containment
Requirements during Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations.''
The adoption of TSTF-51-A results in changes to TS 3.3.6, ``Containment
Purge Isolation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.7, ``Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System (CREVS) Actuation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.8,
``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation Instrumentation;'' TS
3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS);'' TS
3.7.11, ``Control Room Air Conditioning System (CRACS);'' TS 3.7.13,
``Emergency Exhaust System (EES);'' and TS 3.9.4, ``Containment
Penetrations.''
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 changes associated with the implementation of
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-493-A adds test
requirements to TS instrumentation functions related to those
variables that have a significant safety function to ensure that
instruments will function as required to initiate protective systems
or actuate mitigating systems as assumed in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes do not impact the condition or performance of any
plant structure, system or component. The new core design, non-loss-
of-coolant-accident (non-LOCA) and Post-LOCA Subcriticality and
Cooling analyses and the proposed Nominal Trip Setpoints (NTSPs)
will continue to ensure the applicable safety limits are not
exceeded during any conditions of normal operation, for design basis
accidents (DBAs) as well as any Anticipated Operational Occurrence
(AOO). The methods used to perform the affected safety analyses,
including the setpoint methodology are based on methods previously
found acceptable by the NRC and conform to applicable regulatory
guidance. Application of these NRC approved methods will continue to
ensure that acceptable operating limits are established to protect
the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and fuel cladding
during normal operation, DBAs, and any AOOs. The TS changes
associated with the implementation of TSTF-493-A will provide
additional assurance that the instrumentation setpoints are
maintained consistent with the setpoint methodology to ensure the
required automatic trips and safety feature actuations occur such
that the safety limits are not exceeded. The requested TS changes,
including those changes proposed to conform to the new methodologies
and TSTF-493-A do not involve any operational changes that could
affect system reliability, performance, or the possibility of
operator error. The proposed changes do not affect any postulated
accident precursors, or accident mitigation systems, and do not
introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Adoptions of the AST and pursuant TS changes (including those
changes resulting from the adoption of TSTF-51-A) and the changes to
the atmospheric dispersion factors have no impact to the initiation
of DBAs. Once the occurrence of an accident has been postulated, the
new accident source term and atmospheric dispersion factors are an
input to analyses that evaluate the radiological consequences. The
proposed changes do not involve a revision to the design or manner
in which the facility is operated that could increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
The structures, systems and components affected by the proposed
changes act to
[[Page 19403]]
mitigate the consequences of accidents. Based on the AST analyses,
the proposed changes do revise certain performance requirements;
however, the proposed changes do not involve a revision to the
parameters or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of
an accident previously discussed in Chapter 15 of the USAR. Plant
specific radiological analyses have been performed using the AST
methodology and new atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on the
results of these analyses, it has been demonstrated that the control
room dose consequences of the limiting events considered in the
analyses meet the regulatory guidance provided for use with the AST,
and the offsite doses are within acceptable limits. This guidance is
presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves a physical alteration of the plant,
i.e., a change in instrument setpoint. The proposed change does not
create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new
limiting single failures. Additionally the proposed change does not
involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation and
all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed
in accident analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely
affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems,
and components important to safety. The proposed change does not
involve changing any accident initiators.
Implementation of AST and the associated proposed TS changes and
new atmospheric dispersion factors do not alter or involve any
design basis accident initiators and do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will
be installed). The proposed change does not adversely affect the
design function or mode of operations of structures, systems and
components in the facility important to safety. The structures,
systems and components important to safety will continue to operate
in the same manner as before after the AST is implemented,
therefore, no new failure modes are created by this proposed change.
The AST change does not involve changing any accident initiators.
For the fuel handling accident, the adoption of TSTF-51-A
permits the elimination of the TS requirements for certain
Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) systems to be OPERABLE after
sufficient radioactive decay. However, after sufficient radioactive
decay, no credit is taken for these ESF systems to meet the
applicable regulatory dose limits in the event of a fuel handling
accident. Therefore, no structures, systems and components important
to safety are adversely affected by the proposed change. The
proposed change resulting from the adoption of TSTF-51-A does not
involve changing any accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed methodology changes and implementation of TSTF-493-
A will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the
function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the design and performance of the
structures, systems, and components important to safety. Therefore,
the required safety functions will continue to be performed
consistent with the assumptions of the applicable safety analyses.
In addition, operation in accordance with the proposed TS change
will continue to ensure that the previously evaluated accidents will
be mitigated as analyzed. The NRC approved safety analysis
methodologies include restrictions on the choice of inputs, the
degree of conservatism inherent in the calculations, and specified
event acceptance criteria. Analyses performed in accordance with
these methodologies will not result in adverse effects on the
regulated margin of safety. As such, there is no significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The results of the AST analyses are subject to the acceptance
criteria in 10 CFR 50.67. The analyzed events have been carefully
selected, and the analyses supporting these changes have been
performed using approved methodologies to ensure that analyzed
events are bounding and safety margin has not been reduced. The dose
consequences of these limiting events are within the acceptance
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. Thus, by meeting
the applicable regulatory limits for AST, there is no significant
reduction in a margin of safety. New control room atmospheric
dispersion factors (x/Qs) based on site specific meteorological
data, calculated in accordance with the guidance of RG 1.194,
utilizes more recent data and improved calculation methodologies.
For the fuel handling accident, the adoption of TSTF-51-A allows
the elimination of the TS requirements for certain ESF systems to be
OPERABLE, after sufficient radioactive decay. However, after
sufficient radioactive decay, no credit is taken for these ESF
systems to meet the applicable regulatory dose limits in the event
of a fuel handling accident. Therefore, no structures, systems and
components important to safety are adversely affected by the
proposed change. With the proposed changes, the requirements of the
TS will reflect that after sufficient radioactive decay, the water
level and decay time inputs will be the primary success path for
mitigating a fuel handling accident. Thus, the TS will continue to
provide adequate assurance of safe operation during fuel handling.
As such, there is no 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
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 requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
[[Page 19404]]
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 requester'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 requester 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 requester 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\ Requesters 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 20th day of March, 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).
[[Page 19405]]
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester 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/requester 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. 2014-06784 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P