[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25896-25906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10365]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0087]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures
for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and
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 nine amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit 1; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2; Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
Power Plant (two separate amendment requests); Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station; and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. 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) and/
or safeguards information (SGI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 5, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 7, 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 and/or SGI is necessary to respond to this
notice must request document access by May 16, 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-2014-0087. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0087 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-2014-0087.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
[[Page 25897]]
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 the document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that the 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-2014-0087 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 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 and/or
SGI.
III. 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
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
[[Page 25898]]
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.
B. 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 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/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the 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 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
[[Page 25899]]
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 these amendment requests, see
the applications for amendment which are available for public
inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly-available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected].
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Duke Energy
Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302; Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket
Nos. 50-400 and 50-261; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Brunswick County, North Carolina; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear
Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina; and H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated March 31, 2014 (publicly-available versions are available
in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13357A189 and ML14092A293).
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request pertains to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
implementation schedule change in the completion date for Milestone 8.
Milestone 8 pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP
for all safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions,
add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications
which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated
accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions,
add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications
which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated
accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change revises
the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule. Because there is no
change to these established safety margins as result of this change,
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14043A092.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Indian Point Energy
[[Page 25900]]
Center Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8
full implementation date and revise the existing operating license
Physical Protection license condition. The CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date would be changed from December 15, 2014, to June
30, 2016.
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 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.
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 proposed change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits,
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the
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: 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. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2013. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13248A517.
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 of 1954, as amended, 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 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP)
facility in accordance with the JAFNPP security plans. 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 create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
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 to JAFNPP's license will not result in any
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use
the weapons described in Attachment 1 [Attachment 1, which is included
in the LAR, is security-related and is not publicly available] and the
use of the subject weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP
security plans.
The proposed change adds a sentence to the JAFNPP license 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 accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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?
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 to JAFNPP's license will not result in any
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use
the weapons described in Attachment 1 and the use of the subject
weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP security plans.
The proposed change adds a sentence to the JAFNPP license to
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the
Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the
possibility or a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 25901]]
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?
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 to JAFNPP's license will not result in any
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use
the weapons described in Attachment 1 and the use of the subject
weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP security plans.
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 JAFNPP license 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: 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. 50-333, James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14036A363.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full
implementation date and revise the existing operating license Physical
Protection license condition. The CSP Milestone 8 full implementation
date would be changed from December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016.
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 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 proposed change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the
CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. Because there
is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change,
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains,
New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013 (Publicly-available
portion is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A245), as
supplemented by letter dated January 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14035A264).
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
safeguards information (SGI). The amendment would revise Renewed
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS). Specifically, the proposed changes involve
instituting additional protective measures strategies at OCNGS related
to vitalization of certain portions of the Reactor Building. The
proposed changes to implement the use of an ``alternative measure''
requires prior NRC review and approval under 10 CFR 73.55(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:
[[Page 25902]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not involve the
modification of any plant equipment or affect plant operation. The
proposed changes will have no impact on any safety-related Structures,
Systems, and Components (SSC).
The proposed amendment incorporates the use of an ``alternative
measure'' for implementing the applicable requirements in 10 CFR
73.55(b). Instituting the ``alternative measure'' does not involve any
modifications to safety-related SSC. Rather, the ``alternative
measure'' describes how the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b)
are to be implemented in order to ensure a comparable level of safety
to provide high assurance that activities involving special nuclear
material are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not
constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. In
addition, the ``alternative measure'' describes how the required
physical protection program elements will be implemented to protect
against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage and shall
establish, maintain, and implement an effective insider mitigation
program. Instituting the proposed ``alternate measure'' will not alter
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs.
The proposed changes do not alter accident analysis assumptions, add
any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner
in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. No plant modifications or changes are considered necessary
at this time in support of implementation of the proposed ``alternate
measure'' as described in this license amendment request. However, in
the event that future modifications or changes are deemed appropriate
to ensure effective protective strategies in maintaining vitalization
of the [Reactor Building] RB, they would be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59
to determine if a license amendment is required. Any changes would also
be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.54(p) to determine if there is a decrease in
the safeguards effectiveness in the site Security Plan. Prior NRC
approval would be obtained if required by these evaluations.
Therefore, the proposed changes involving implementation of the
described ``alternative measure'' 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 changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSC. The proposed changes do not affect plant
equipment or accident analyses.
The proposed changes to institute the use of an ``alternative
measure'' for implementing the applicable requirements in 10 CFR
73.55(b) provide assurance that safety-related SSCs are adequately
protected. Implementation of the proposed ``alternative measure'' and
inclusion of the associated elements in the Security Plan and in other
security-related documentation when approved do not result in the need
for any new or different UFSAR design basis accident analysis. The
proposed changes do not introduce new equipment that could create a new
or different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed
changes to institute the ``alternative measure.''
Therefore, the proposed changes involving implementation of the
described ``alternative measure'' 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety
margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the
safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed
changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes
involving implementation of the ``alternative measure.''
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 structure) to limit the
level of radiation to the public. The proposed changes would not alter
the way any safety-related SSC functions and would not alter the way
the plant is operated. The proposed changes continue to provide high
assurance that activities involving special nuclear material are not
inimical to the common defense and security and do not constitute an
unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. In addition,
instituting the elements that comprise the ``alternative measure'' will
continue to ensure that the required physical protection program
elements will be implemented to protect against the design basis threat
of radiological sabotage and shall continue to establish, maintain, and
implement an effective insider mitigation program. The proposed changes
do not introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing
uncertainties associated with any safety limit. The proposed changes
have no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. The
proposed changes 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 changes involving implementation of the
described ``alternative measure'' do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kenneth
Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 18, 2013. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A067.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
license amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits.'' TVA submitted this
license amendment request to satisfy a commitment to prepare and submit
[[Page 25903]]
revised BFN Unit 1, P/T limits prior to the start of the period of
extended operation, as discussed in Section 4.2.5 provided in ``Browns
Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN)--Units 1, 2 and 3--Application for Renewed
Operating Licenses,'' dated December 31, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML040060359). Specifically, the proposed change replaces the current
sets of TS Figures 3.4.9-1, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for
Mechanical Heatup, Cooldown following Shutdown, and Reactor Critical
Operations,'' and 3.4.9-2, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Reactor
In-Service Leak and Hydrostatic Testing.'' The figures proposed to be
replaced consist of two sets of P/T limit curves, one set valid up to
12 effective full-power years (EFPYs) of operation and another set
valid from 12 to 16 EFPYs of operation. The proposed change replaces
the current curves with a set of figures valid for operation up to 25
EFPYs and another set valid for operation from greater than 25 EFPYs to
less than 38 EFPYs.
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 any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that have
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves
were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. The proposed
changes deal exclusively with the reactor vessel P/T curves, which
define the permissible regions for operation and testing. Failure of
the reactor vessel is not considered as a design basis accident.
Through the design conservatisms used to calculate the P/T curves,
reactor vessel failure has a low probability of occurrence and is not
considered in the safety analyses. The proposed changes adjust the
reference temperature for the limiting material to account for
irradiation effects and provide the same level of protection as
previously evaluated and approved.
The adjusted reference temperature calculations were performed in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G using
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, ``Calculational
and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence
(ADAMS Accession No. ML10890301),'' to reflect use of the operating
limits to no more than 38 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). These
changes do not alter or prevent the operation of equipment required to
mitigate any accident analyzed in the BFN Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that have
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves
were developed based on NRC approved methodologies. The proposed
changes to the reactor vessel P/T curves do not involve a modification
to plant equipment. No new failure modes are introduced. There is no
effect on the function of any plant system, and no new system
interactions are introduced by this change. Therefore, the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that have
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves
were developed based on NRC approved methodologies. The proposed curves
conform to the guidance contained in RG-1.190, and maintain the safety
margins specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
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.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Duke
Energy Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302; Duke Energy Progress, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50-400 and 50-261; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units
1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina; Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida; Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina; and H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and
50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3,
Westchester County, New York
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)).
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI
regulations.
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 or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. 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 or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI, SGI, or both 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
[[Page 25904]]
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 and/or SGI
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);
(3) If the request is for SUNSI, 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; and
(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who
would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the
identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the
requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain
the following information:
(a) A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know''
the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent
with the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the
statement must explain:
(i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is
necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a
specific contention in this proceeding; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to
meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff redaction of
information from requested documents before their release may be
appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do
not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its
counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or
assistant who satisfies these criteria.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by
10 CFR part 2, Subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure
Web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-7000.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requestor will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and email address. After providing this information, the requestor
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by
calling 1-630-829-9565, or by email to [email protected]. The
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR
part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI
must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history
records check.
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $238.00 \4\ to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of
Personnel Managements adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration,
Personnel Security Branch, will make final determination whether the
claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the
Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status
prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the
background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258;
however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need
to know, are still applicable.
Note: Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs
C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following
address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Personnel Security Branch,
Mail Stop TWFN-03-B46M,
11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.
These documents and materials should not be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.
D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the
requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and
accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The
NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, the NRC staff will
determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines
that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(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 setting forth
terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to
SUNSI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that
the requestor
[[Page 25905]]
has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of Administration
will then determine, based upon completion of the background check,
whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required
for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of Administration
determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and
reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requestor in writing. The
notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as
the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions
may include, but not be limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure
Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order \6\ by each individual who
will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively,
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI or SGI 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 or SGI contentions by that
later deadline.
J. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination with respect to access to SUNSI 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.
(4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI
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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI or SGI, 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. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target
schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th of April 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
and 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) and/or Safeguards
Information (SGI) 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;
demonstrating that access should be granted
(e.g., showing technical competence for
access to SGI); and, for SGI, including
application fee for fingerprint/background
check.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for
intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner
reply).
[[Page 25906]]
20....................... U.S. 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 (1)
need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI.
(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).
If NRC staff makes the finding of need to
know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC
staff begins background check (including
fingerprinting for a criminal history
records check), information processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents), and readiness
inspections.
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' no ``need to
know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a
motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's denial of access; NRC staff files
copy of access determination with the
presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
Judge or other designated officer, as
appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need''
for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
190...................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing,
need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness
and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to
file motion for Protective Order and draft
Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
determination that the proposed recipient of
SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note:
Before the Office of Administration makes an
adverse determination regarding access to
SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided
an opportunity to correct or explain
information.
205...................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a
final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or
reliability determination either before the
presiding officer or another designated
officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
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 and/or
SGI consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI and/
or SGI. 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 or SGI contentions by that
later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-10365 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P