[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53455-53464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19880]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0190]
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 Fermi 2; Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; Hope
Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1
and 2; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; 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 October 9, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by November 10, 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 September 19, 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-2014-0190. 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-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0190.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain 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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One
[[Page 53456]]
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
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 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
[[Page 53457]]
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 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 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 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or
[[Page 53458]]
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 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].
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B528.
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 amendment proposes a change to the Fermi 2 Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) M8 full implementation date as set forth in the Fermi 2
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation
date for the Fermi 2 CSP does not involve modifications to any
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). The
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing
the Fermi 2 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 Fermi 2 CSP 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. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The implementation of the Fermi 2 CSP 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. Does the proposed change 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 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 CSP 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 does 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: Bruce R. Maters, DTE Energy, General
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2)
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 14, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14002A086, and ML14051A499, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would change the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 facility operating license
and technical specifications. Specifically, the amendment requests
review and approval to transition the fire protection licensing basis
at BVPS, from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Section 50.48(b), to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants.'' The
adoption of NFPA-805, would provide BVPS with a risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection program, and allow them to make
changes to their fire protection program without prior NRC approval,
only if the changes would not adversely affect the plant's ability to
achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 53459]]
Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. Engineering analyses, which may
include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments,
and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate
that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have been
satisfied. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBA) at BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alters design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their design functions. SSCs required to safely shut down the
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain
capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the guidance
in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1 [Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314)]. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations,
probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations,
have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based
requirements of NFPA 805 have been met. NFPA 805, taken as a whole,
provides an acceptable alternative for satisfying General Design
Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 and meets the
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations
and guidance. It also achieves defense in depth and the goals,
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in
Chapter 1 of the standard and, if there are any increases in core
damage frequency (CDF) or risk the increase will be small and
consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the assumed function. The proposed amendment will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological
dose criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not increased with the
implementation of the proposed amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or
previously analyzed accident with off-site dose was included in the
evaluation of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does
not alter the requirements or function for systems required during
accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection
licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.[4]8(c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide
1.205, Revision 1 will not result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators or alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers
that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance
criteria for licensees to identify fire protection requirements that
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required
fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been
evaluated. Based on this, the implementation of the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this
amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on
any safety-related system as a result of this amendment. Therefore,
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind
of accident previously evaluated is not created with the
implementation of this amendment.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 in accordance with the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety. The risk evaluation of plant changes, as appropriate, were
measured quantitatively for acceptability using the delta CDF and
delta [Large Early Release Frequency] LERF criteria from Section
5.3.5 of NEI 04-02 and of Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of
equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. This amendment
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their
design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and
to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the guidance
in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers that NFPA
805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and
safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Therefore, the
transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured to
implement the NRC's mission of the protection of public health and
safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the
environment. NFPA 805 is also consistent with the key principles for
evaluating license basis changes as described in Regulatory Guide
1.174 [An Approach for using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-
Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100910006)] and is consistent with the
defense in depth philosophy while maintaining sufficient safety
margins.
[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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.
[[Page 53460]]
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April 29, 2014, and May
9, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML13200A185, ML14035A297, ML14077A291, ML14153A498, and ML14132A189,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would allow for a transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel
design and implementation of AREVA safety analysis methods at the MNGP.
The transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel design would permit use at
Extended Power Uprate conditions with operation in the Maximum Extended
Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) power-flow operating domain.
Specifically, NSPM proposed to revise Technical Specification (TS)
5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add AREVA analysis
methodologies to the list of approved methods used in determining core
operating limits. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota also
proposes to (1) revise TS 2.1, ``SL [Safety Limits],'' to change the
steam dome pressure associated with safety limits when using AREVA
safety analysis methods, and (2) insert an editorial change to TS
4.2.1, ``Reactor Core, Fuel Assemblies,'' to add ``water channel,'' in
addition to the current ``water rod,'' to reflect the design of the
AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel assembly design feature.
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, with minor editorial revisions
designated in brackets ([ ]):
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Changing fuel designs and making an editorial change to TS will
not increase the probability of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA).
The fuel cannot increase the probability of a primary coolant system
breach or rupture, as there is not interaction between the fuel and
the system piping. The fuel will continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46,
[``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,''] limits. Therefore, the consequences
of a LOCA will not be increased.
The probability of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA) does not
increase because the ATRIUM 10XM fuel channel is mechanically
compatible with the co-resident fuel and existing control blade
designs. The mechanical interaction and friction forces between the
ATRIUM 10XM channel and control blades would not be higher than
previous designs. In addition, routine plant testing includes
confirmation of adequate control blade to control rod drive
coupling. The probability of a CRDA is not increased with the use of
ATRIUM 10XM fuel. CRDA consequences are evaluated on a cycle-
specific basis, confirming the number of calculated rod failures
remains within the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) design
basis. Similarly, changing the fuel design and making an editorial
change to TS cannot increase the probability of an anticipated
operation occurrence (AOO). As a passive component, the fuel does
not interact with plant operating or control systems. Therefore, the
fuel change cannot affect the initiators of the previously evaluated
AOO transient events. Thermal limits for the new fuel will be
determined on a cycle-specific basis, ensuring the specified
acceptable fuel design limits continue to be met. Therefore, the
consequences of a previously evaluated AOO will not increase.
A disposition of the plant's postulated accidents with
radiological consequences indicated that the consequences of only
two accidents could be affected by the proposed change in fuel type;
the LOCA and the CRDA. Revised dose analyses using the approved
Alternative Source Term methodology at Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
rated power concluded that the change in fuel type resulted in small
variations in the radiological source term for the reactor core and
a corresponding slight difference in the overall dose consequences.
At no location did the calculated dose increase more than two
percent compared to previously-submitted radiological dose at EPU
power levels. Dose consequences for the LOCA and CRDA with an ATRIUM
10XM fuel source term remained well below the regulatory limits of
10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term,''] and Regulatory Guide
1.183, [``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.'']
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits involves a
technical evaluation that demonstrates the range of applicability
for the AREVA Critical Power Correlations will always bound the
postulated pressures of plant transients using the AREVA safety
analysis methodology. As a technical evaluation, this proposed
change involves no physical change to a system, structure,
component, or setpoint. Therefore, the proposed change in no way can
affect the probability or the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed activity 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 ATRIUM 10XM fuel product has been designed to maintain
neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical compatibility with the
co-resident fuel designs currently in use at MNGP. The ATRIUM 10XM
fuel has been designed to meet fuel licensing criteria specified in
NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for Review of Safety Analysis
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.'' Compliance with these criteria
ensures the fuel will not fail in an unexpected manner.
A change in fuel design and an editorial change to TS cannot
create any new accident initiators because the fuel is a passive
component having no direct influence on the performance of operating
plant systems and equipment. Hence, a fuel design change cannot
create a new type of malfunction leading to a new or different kind
of accident. Consequently, the proposed fuel design change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
Also, as a technical evaluation, the proposed change to Reactor
Core Safety Limits involves no physical change to a system,
structure, component, or setpoint. Therefore, this proposed change
could in no way introduce a new physical interaction that would
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed change does not result in the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ATRIUM 10XM fuel is designed to comply with the fuel
licensing criteria specified in NUREG-0800. Cycle-specific and
cycle-independent safety analyses are performed ensuring no fuel
failures will occur as the result of anticipated operational
occurrences, and dose consequences for accidents remain with the
bounds of 10 CFR 50.67. Applicable regulatory margins and
requirements are maintained.
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits is consistent
with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC approved
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
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
[[Page 53461]]
proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14016A079 and ML14174B239, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Schedule.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. 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 PSEG Cyber Security Plan
(CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 (M8) full implementation
date as set forth in the PSEG CSP Implementation Schedule. The
revision of the full implementation date for M8 does not involve
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule provides a
timetable for fully implementing the PSEG 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, thereby achieving high assurance that the
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks
are protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the PSEG CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of 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 PSEG CSP 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 structure) to
limit the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public. The
proposed amendment does not alter the way any safety-related SSCs
function and does not alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP
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 does not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit
the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.
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: May 8, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated May 8, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14142A018 and ML14142A013, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the South Texas Project (STP) Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the STP
CSP Implementation Schedule. The amendments would also revise paragraph
2.H of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 for STP, Unit 1 and NFP-
80 for STP, Unit 2, by incorporating the revised CSP implementation
schedule.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
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 STP CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the STP CSP Implementation
Schedule. The revision of the full implementation date for the STP
CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-related structures,
systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule
provides a timetable for fully implementing the STP 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 STP CSP 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 STP CSP 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.
[[Page 53462]]
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 amendment
does not alter the way any safety related SSC functions and does not
alter the way the plant is operated. The STP CSP 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
does 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments 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.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14064A328.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING
LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to incorporate Westinghouse Electric Company
LLC's topical report WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA
Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated Statistical Treatment of
Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),'' January 2005, to the list of analytical
methods used to determine the core operating limits. A non-proprietary
version of the topical report, designated as WCAP-16009-NP-A, is
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML050910159 and ML050910161.
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 revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis
methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A
to Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for establishing core
operating limits.
Accident analyses are not accident initiators; therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident. The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated
that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria
for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors,'' were met. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent
with the methodology in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met; thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to the plant
are associated with the proposed change. 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 revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a
method used for establishing core operating limits. There are no
physical changes being made to the plant as a result of using the
Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for
performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA
analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions; demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The
configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or
components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology.
Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event
results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new
accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within
the design limits of existing plant equipment.
In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA
analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that
could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems
remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been
installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or
accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation
actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in
Specification 5.6.5b. is an administrative change that does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of 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 revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a
method used for establishing core operating limits. The analyses
using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable acceptance criteria in
10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for large break LOCAs
include quantitative limits for fuel performance established in 10
CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being changed by this
proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses performed
consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A,
including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions,
demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met; thus,
this 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
[[Page 53463]]
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2)
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
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. 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) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
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
[[Page 53464]]
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 14th day of August 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20....................... 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. 2014-19880 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P