[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38771-38780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16223]
[[Page 38771]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0154]
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 eight amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Beaver
Valley Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2; Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3; and Callaway 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).
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 6, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 8, 2015. 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 July 17, 2015.
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-2015-0154. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0154 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-2015-0154.
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 White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0154, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
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.
[[Page 38772]]
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 a notice of issuance in
the Federal Register. 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 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 unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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
[[Page 38773]]
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 home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, 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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15120A290.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications related to the
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios. The proposed changes result
from a cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of
PBAPS Unit 3, in the upcoming Cycle 21. The re-analysis was performed
to accommodate operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit
Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based on a separate license
amendment request (LAR) dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14247A503, redacted to remove proprietary information).
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 NRC staff edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or
[[Page 38774]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical
Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific
thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed
in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application for
Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to reasonably assure
that, during normal operation and during anticipated operational
transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. The new
SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to boiling transition.
The MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] safety limit is
reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The
analyses for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Unit 3 Cycle
21, with the addition of operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain,
have concluded that a two recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of
>=1.15, based on the application of Global Nuclear Fuel's NRC-
approved MCPR safety limit methodology, will reasonably assure that
this acceptance criterion is met. For single recirculation loop
operation, a MCPR safety limit of >=1.15 also reasonably assures
that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are
presented and controlled in accordance with the PBAPS Unit 3 Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any additional plant
modifications or operational changes that could affect system
reliability or performance or that could affect the probability of
operator error beyond those associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS
Accession No. ML14247A503]. The requested changes do not affect any
postulated accident precursors, do not affect any accident
mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation
mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes 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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to reasonably
assure that during normal operation and during anticipated
operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core
do not experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated.
The new SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC-approved methodology
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of operation, any
changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications beyond those
associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503].
The proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be
acceptable for Cycle 21 operation with the MELLLA+ operating domain.
The core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-
approved methods. The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods for
establishing the core operating limits do not result in the creation
of any new precursors to an accident. Therefore, this 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.
There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety
previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to
the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The SLMCPRs reasonably assure that, during normal operation and
during anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all
fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition if the
limits are not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding
integrity.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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, Esquire, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated May 6, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15084A346 and ML15127A202, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would change the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Operating License.
Specifically, the proposed license amendment would revise the Cyber
Security Plan, 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. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment extends the completion date for milestone
8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation schedule. Revising
the full implementation date for the CSP does not involve
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The implementation schedule provides a timeline
for fully implementing the 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 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, tested, or
inspected.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, 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 change does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. New
equipment is not installed with the proposed amendment, nor does the
proposed amendment cause existing equipment to be operated in a new
or different manner. The change to cyber security implementation
plan milestone 8 is administrative in nature and relies on the
significant protection against cyber-attacks that has been gained
through the implementation of CSP milestones 1 through 7. Since the
proposed amendment does not involve a change to the plan design or
operation, no new system interactions are created by this change.
The proposed changes do not result in any new failure modes, and
thus cannot initiate an accident different from those previously
evaluated.
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 38775]]
The proposed amendment does not affect the performance of any
structures, systems or components as described in the design basis
analyses. The change to milestone 8 of the cyber security
implementation plan is administrative in nature.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. The
proposed amendment does not introduce changes to limits established
in the accident analysis. Since there is no impact to any SSCs, or
any maintenance or operational practice, there is also no reduction
in any margin of safety.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, Ohio 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October 3, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML14283A125.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the MNGP Technical Specifications and approve
certain analytical methods to support operation in the expanded power-
flow operating domain described as the Extended Flow Window (EFW).
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 probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis
Accidents occurring is not affected by the EFW operating domain
because MNGP will continue to comply with the regulatory and design
basis criteria established for plant equipment. Based on the EFW
domain representing the same region as the Maximum Extended Load
Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+), there is no change in
consequences of postulated accidents when operating in the EFW
operating domain compared to the operating domain previously
evaluated. The results of accident evaluations remain within the NRC
approved acceptance limits.
The spectrum of postulated transients has been investigated and
is shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria.
In the area of fuel and core design, the Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is still met. Continued compliance
with the SLMCPR will be confirmed on a cycle specific basis
consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC. Challenges to the
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary were evaluated for the extended
operating domain conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and
radiation) and were found to meet their acceptance criteria for
allowable stresses and overpressure margin.
Evaluations have also show that the consequences of the Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA) are not exacerbated by operation in the EFW
domain.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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.
Equipment that could be affected by the EFW operating domain has
been evaluated. Aside from small changes to plant setpoints, the
only physical change that is proposed involves installation of an
electrical jumper that had been previously approved and installed
for several operating cycles. No new operating mode, safety-related
equipment lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was
identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been
evaluated and no new or different kind of accident has been
identified. The EFW operating domain uses developed technology and
applies it within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related
equipment in accordance with the regulatory criteria. No new
accident or event precursor has been identified.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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 EFW operating domain affects only design and operational
margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
and containment were evaluated for the EFW operating domain
conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design
and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures,
systems and components (including the reactor coolant pressure
boundary) will remain within their design basis event categories. No
NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded.
Because the MNGP configuration and responses to transients and
postulated accidents do not result in exceeding the presently-
approved NRC acceptance limits, the proposed changes do not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 25, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated April 20, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15070A007 and ML15110A420, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8, full
implementation date as set forth in the Fort Calhoun Station 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. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment proposes a change to the Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS)/Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Cyber Security Program
(CSP) Milestone 8 (MS8) full implementation date as set forth in the
CSP Implementation Schedule and associated regulatory commitment.
The revision of the MS8 implementation date for the CSP does not
involve modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The revision of the 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 change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 38776]]
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule
and associated regulatory commitment. The revision of the MS8 full
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to
any safety-related SSCs. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule
and associated regulatory commitment. The revision of the MS8 full
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to
any safety-related SSCs. The proposed amendment has no effect on the
structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure
boundary, or containment structure.
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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A201.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise Technical Specification 3/4.3.3, ``Reactor Trip
System Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3-1, Action 2, to allow one channel
to be bypassed for up to 4 hours for surveillance testing and would
establish two new action notes for the power range nuclear
instrumentation in Table 4.3-1, which would exclude solid state
protection system input relays from the surveillance testing when the
bypass test capability is used to perform the surveillance. The
proposed changes would support the installation and use of bypass test
capability for the power range nuclear instrumentation.
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 the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The power range (PR) nuclear instrumentation is not an accident
initiator or precursor. The PR nuclear instrumentation provides
indication and plant protection through a reactor trip. The reactor
trip is part of the plant's accident mitigation response. With the
existing system, analog channel comparators are placed in the
tripped condition for channel testing. This changes the normal two-
out-of-four coincidence trip logic to a one-out-of-three trip logic.
In this condition, a human error, channel failure, or spurious
transient in a redundant channel could result in a reactor trip.
Testing the PR nuclear instrumentation channels in bypass eliminates
the spurious reactor trip because the trip logic becomes two-out-of-
three; thereby retaining the two channels required to actuate the
protective function.
The proposed change does not affect how the Reactor Trip System
(RTS) functions. The proposed change does not alter or prevent any
structures, systems, or components from performing their intended
design basis function(s) to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the applicable acceptance criteria.
Surveillance testing in the bypass condition will not cause any
design or analysis acceptance criteria to be exceeded.
PR channel testing in bypass does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not increase the types or
amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, or
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The change is consistent with safety analysis
assumptions and resultant consequences. Implementation of the PR
nuclear instrumentation bypass testing capability does not affect
the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for the
mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of a design
basis accident. The plant response as assumed in the safety analyses
is unaffected by this change.
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 manner in which the RTS provides plant protection is not
changed. Surveillance testing in bypass does not affect accident
initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety
analyses. The PR nuclear instrumentation will continue to have the
same setpoints. No new failure modes are created for any plant
equipment. The bypass test instrumentation has been designed and
qualified to applicable regulatory and industry standards. Fault
conditions, failure detection, reliability, and equipment
qualification have been considered. Existing accident scenarios
remain unchanged and new or different accident scenarios are not
created. The types of accidents defined in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to represent the credible spectrum
of events analyzed to determine safe plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
Safety analyses are not changed or modified as a result of the
proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes to reflect installed
PR nuclear instrumentation bypass test capability. The changes do
not alter the manner in which the safety limits, limiting safety
system setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. Margins associated with the applicable safety analyses
acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety analyses
remain bounding; their assumptions and conclusions are not affected
by performing PR nuclear instrumentation surveillance testing in
bypass. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses continue
to remain available to perform their required mitigation functions.
The impact of testing in bypass upon reactor safety was previously
evaluated by the NRC during their review of WCAP-10271-P-A [titled
``Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out of Service Times
for the Reactor Protection Instrumentation System''], and determined
to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
[[Page 38777]]
Date of amendment request: December 2, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 12, 2015, and May 4, 2015. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14336A246, ML15044A053,
and ML15124A668, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This request contains sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would
revise the SSES Unit 1 and Unit 2 Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8,
full implementation date as set forth in the SSES cyber security plan
implementation schedule.
On June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the
name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC, to Susquehanna
Nuclear, LLC. This amendment was issued subsequent to an Order issued
on April 10, 2015, to SSES approving an indirect license transfer. As
such, all references in the basis for proposed no significant hazards
consideration below to PPL Susquehanna, LLC, have been replaced with
references to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, and are shown in square
brackets [ ].
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 the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
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 [Susquehanna Nuclear,
LLC, (Susquehanna)] Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 (M8) full
implementation date as set forth in the [Susquehanna] CSP
implementation schedule. The revision of the full implementation
date for the [Susquehanna] 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 [Susquehanna] 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 [Susquehanna] Cyber Security Plan
implementation schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The implementation of the [Susquehanna] 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 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 [Susquehanna] 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: Damon D. Obie, Assoc. General Counsel, Talen
Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton Street, Suite 150, Allentown,
Pennsylvania 18101.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 6, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15090A436.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Section 2.1.1.2 of the Technical Specifications
(TSs), changing the value of the safety limit minimum critical power
ratio (SLMCPR) for two-loop operation from the current 1.09 to 1.06,
and for single-loop operation from the current 1.11 to 1.08. The
proposed revised values are supported by the application of the
methodology approved previously for BFN Unit 3 by Amendment No. 270,
dated July 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML1411A286).
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 TS revision is based on the implementation of a
previously approved methodology. As such, it involves no changes to
the operation of any system or component during normal, accident, or
transient operating conditions. The change does not affect the
initiators of any [previously evaluated] accident.
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 reduction of the SLMCPR values is based upon
previously approved methodologies and does not involve changes to
the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no
new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not introduce a new or
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of plant
structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for
safe operation and setpoints of equipment relied upon to respond to
transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in SLMCPR
does not change the requirements governing operation or availability
of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of
safety. The change does not alter the behavior of the plant
equipment.
The reduction of the SLMCPR values does not change the
requirement that no more than 0.1% of fuel rods in the core
experience boiling transition during normal operation and
anticipated operational occurrences.
[[Page 38778]]
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, WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15120A482.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8, full
implementation date as set forth in the Callaway 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:
Criterion 1. The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in nature as it only
involves extending the timeframe for final implementation of the
cyber security plan for Callaway. It involves no change to the
intended plan itself. The 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 that affect the performance capability of
the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 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 changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2. The proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change to the Callaway Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that could
introduce new failure modes leading or contributing to 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.
Criterion 3. The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
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 Callaway Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature.
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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
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
[[Page 38779]]
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 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 24th day of June 2015.
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).
[[Page 38780]]
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. 2015-16223 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P