[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43661-43669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0118]
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 requests; 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 four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS); Duane Arnold Energy Center
(DAEC); and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3. For
each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it involves
no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment
request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016. 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 15, 2016.
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-2016-0118. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0118 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-2016-0118.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
[[Page 43662]]
(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-2016-0118, 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment 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 if 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. If the Commission
takes 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. If the Commission makes 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
[[Page 43663]]
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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
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). 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.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by
September 6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)''
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that
under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
September 6, 2016.
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
[[Page 43664]]
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.
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].
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Docket No. 50-298, Cooper
Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: April 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16120A367.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the value of the Safety Limit Minimum Critical
Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two recirculation loop operation (TLO) and for
single recirculation loop operation (SLO) in the CNS Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2 based on analysis performed for CNS
operation in Cycle 30. Specifically, for TS 2.1.1.2, the amendment will
change the value of the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) for TLO
from greater than to equal to (>=) 1.11 to >= 1.12 and the value of the
MCPR for SLO from >= 1.13 to >= 1.14.
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 basis of the SLMCPR is to ensure no mechanistic fuel damage
is calculated to occur if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPR
values preserve the existing margin to transition boiling. The
derivation of the revised SLMCPR for CNS, for incorporation into the
Technical Specifications and its use to determine plant and cycle-
specific thermal limits, has been performed using Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved methods. The revised SLMCPR values do not change
the method of operating the plant and have no effect on the
probability of an accident, initiating event or transient.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that 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 proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for
the CNS core reload design. These changes do not involve any new or
different methods for operating the facility. No new initiating
events or transients result from these changes.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that 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.
The values of the proposed SLMCPR provide a margin of safety by
ensuring that no more than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected to be in a
boiling transition if the Minimum Critical Power Ratio limit is not
violated. The proposed changes will ensure the appropriate level of
fuel protection is maintained. Additionally, operational limits are
established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR
is not violated during all modes of operation. This will ensure that
the fuel design safety criteria are met (i.e., that at least 99.9%
of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal
operation as well as anticipated operational occurrences).
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 43665]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shaun M. Anderson.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16077A229.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguard information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the DAEC Technical Specification (TS) Section
4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage, Criticality,'' and TS Section 4.3.3, ``Fuel
Storage, Capacity,'' in accordance with the spent fuel pool criticality
safety analysis report enclosed in the application. The amendment would
also add a new requirement to TS 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' for a
Spent Fuel Pool Neutron Absorber Monitoring Program.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves a new spent fuel pool
criticality safety analysis and proposes modified or new TS
requirements. The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis
does not involve a physical change to any plant system nor does it
involve a change to any of the accident mitigation features
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, spent fuel storage racks, decay heat generation
rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
significantly increase the probability of a fuel mis-positioning
event because the new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis
demonstrates that fuel assemblies that meet the new TS requirements
can be stored in any spent fuel pool location without restriction.
There is no dose consequence associated with an abnormal
condition since the criticality safety analysis acceptance criteria
preclude criticality and does not involve a radiological release.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves a new spent fuel pool
criticality safety analysis and proposes modified or new TS
requirements. The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis
does not involve a physical change to any plant system.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, spent fuel storage racks, decay heat generation
rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The
proposed amendment does not change the method of fuel movement or
fuel storage and does not create the potential for a new 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident Requirements, requires the
spent and fresh fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron
multiplication factor, keff, less than or equal to 0.95
when fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance
for uncertainties. Therefore, for criticality, the required safety
margin is 5%, including a conservative margin to account for
engineering and manufacturing uncertainties. The new spent fuel pool
criticality safety analysis and proposed TS changes continue to
satisfy this requirement.
The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis does not
affect spent fuel heat generation or the spent fuel pool cooling
systems. In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped
fuel assembly remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to
a fuel handling accident is unaffected by the implementation of the
new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis. The proposed change
reduces the capacity of the spent fuel pool which either does not
impact or increases the 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: Mr. William Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16145A250.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguard information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the DAEC Technical Specification (TS) Section
2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs,'' to change the Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two recirculation loop operation and
for single recirculation loop operation. The changes would reflect the
cycle-specific analysis. The proposed amendment would also remove an
outdated historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR ensures that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will
not be susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or
the most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The new
SLMCPR values preserve the existing margin to the onset of
transition boiling; therefore, the probability of fuel damage is not
increased as a result of this proposed change.
The determination of the new SLMCPRs has been performed using
NRC-approved methods of evaluation. These plant-specific
calculations are performed each operating cycle. The new SLMCPR
values do not change the method of operating the plant; therefore,
they have no effect on the probability of an accident initiating
event or transient.
The proposed change does not involve any plant modifications or
operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance or that could affect the probability of operator error.
The proposed change does not affect any postulated accident
precursors, does not affect any accident mitigating systems, and
does not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
[The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 43666]]
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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that
during normal operation and during abnormal operational transients,
at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling 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.'' The
proposed change does not involve any new modes of operation, any
changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The new SLMCPRs
have been shown to be acceptable for DAEC Cycle 26 operation. The
core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-
approved methods. The proposed SLMCPRs or methods for establishing
the core operating limits do not result in the creation of any new
precursors to an accident. The proposed change does not involve any
new or different methods for operating the facility. No new
initiating events or transients result from the proposed change.
[The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.]
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The new SLMCPRs have been calculated using NRC-approved methods
of evaluation with plant and cycle-specific input values for the
fuel and core design for the upcoming cycle of operation. The SLMCPR
values ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be
susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or the
most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The MCPR
operating limit is set appropriately above the safety limit value to
ensure adequate margin when the cycle-specific transients are
evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is maintained with the
revised values.
[The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.]
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: Mr. William Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated November 13, December 15, December 15, and December 18,
2015; and February 16, March 8, March 9, March 24, March 28, April 4,
April 5, and April 14, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15282A154 (Package), ML15317A361, ML15351A097,
ML15351A113, ML15355A413, ML16049A248, ML16069A142, ML16070A189,
ML16085A143, ML16089A054, ML16095A293, ML16096A411, and ML16106A072,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would increase the authorized maximum steady-state reactor
core power level for each unit from 3,458 megawatt thermal (MWt) to
3,952 MWt. This amendment authorizes an increase of approximately 20
percent above the original licensed thermal power (OLTP) level of 3,293
MWt, and an increase of approximately 14.3 percent above the current
licensed thermal power level of 3,458 MWt.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power
level for BFN from the current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3458
MWt to 3952 MWt. Evaluations and analysis of the nuclear steam
supply system (NSSS) and balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the power uprate
were performed in accordance with the approaches described in the
following.
GE Nuclear Energy, ``Constant Pressure Power Uprate,''
NEDC-33004P-A (CLTR), Revision 4, dated July 2003
GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Guidelines for General
Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate,'' NEDC-32424P-
A (ELTR1), dated February 1999
GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Evaluation of General Electric
Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate,'' NEDC-32523P-A
(ELTR2), dated February 1999
The Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) summarizes the
results of safety evaluations performed that justify uprating the
licensed thermal power at BFN. The PUSAR uses GEH [General Electric-
Hitachi] GE14 fuel as the principal reference fuel type for the
evaluation of the impact of EPU [extended power uprate]. However,
the BFN units will utilize AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel, with some legacy
ATRIUM 10 fuel, under EPU conditions. Therefore, the AREVA Fuel
Uprate Safety Analysis Report (FUSAR) for Browns Ferry Units 1, 2,
and 3 and fuel related reports are provided to supplement the PUSAR
and address the impact of EPU conditions on the AREVA fuel in the
BFN units. The AREVA analyses contained in the FUSAR have provided
disposition of the critical characteristics of the GE14 fuel and
have been shown to bound ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM 10 fuel.
The fuel-related reports are as follows:
ANP-3377, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA [Loss-of-
Coolant Accident] Break Spectrum Analysis for ATRIUM 10XM Fuel (EPU)
ANP-3378, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA-ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling System] Analysis MAPLHGR Limits for ATRIUM
10XM Fuel (EPU)
ANP-3384, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA-ECCS Analysis
MAPLHGR Limits for ATRIUM 10 Fuel (EPU)
ANP-3342, Browns Ferry EPU (120% OLTP) Equilibrium Fuel
Cycle Design
ANP-3372, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 EPU (120% OLTP) LAR
[License Amendment Request] Reference Fuel Cycle Design
ANP-3404, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 Representative
Reload Analysis at Extended Power Uprate
ANP-3343, Nuclear Fuel Design Report Browns Ferry EPU (120%
OLTP) Equilibrium Cycle ATRIUM 10XM Fuel
ANP-3386, Mechanical Design Report for Browns Ferry Units
1, 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate (EPU) ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assemblies
ANP-3385, Mechanical Design Report for Browns Ferry Units
1, 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate (EPU) ATRIUM 10 Fuel Assemblies
ANP-3388, Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Browns
Ferry Extended Power Uprate
ANP-3327, Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic
Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU
FS1-0019629/30, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 MCPR [Minimum
Critical Power Ratio] Safety Limit Analysis With SAFLIM3D
Methodology
ANP-2860 Revision 2, Supplement 2, Browns Ferry Unit 1--
Summary of Responses to Request for Additional Information,
Extension for Use of ATRIUM 10XM Fuel for Extended Power Uprate
ANP-2637, Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Methodology
Compendium
ANP-3409, Fuel-Related Emergent Regulatory Issues
The evaluations concluded that all plant components, as
modified, will continue to be capable of performing their design
function at the proposed uprated core power level.
[[Page 43667]]
The BFN licensing and design bases, including BFN accident
analysis, were also evaluated for the effect of the proposed power
increase. The evaluation concluded that the applicable analysis
acceptance criteria continue to be met.
Power level is not an initiator of any transient or accident; it
is used as an input assumption to equipment design and accident
analyses. The proposed change does not affect the release paths or
the frequency of release for any accident previously evaluated in
the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. SSCs required to mitigate
transients remain capable of performing their design functions
considering radiological consequences associated with the effect of
the proposed EPU. The source terms used to evaluate the radiological
consequences were reviewed and were determined to bound operation at
EPU power levels. The results of EPU accident evaluations do not
exceed NRC-approved acceptance limits.
The spectrum of postulated accidents and transients were
reviewed and were shown to meet the regulatory criteria to which BFN
is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and core design, the
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met.
Continued compliance with the SLMPCR and other SAFDLs is confirmed
on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by
the NRC.
Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were
evaluated at the EPU conditions of pressure, temperature, flow, and
radiation and found to meet the acceptance criteria for allowable
stresses. Adequate overpressure margin is maintained.
Challenges to the containment were also evaluated. The
containment and its associated cooling system continue to meet
applicable regulatory requirements. The calculated post event
suppression pool temperatures remain within design limits, while
ensuring adequate net positive suction head is maintained for
required emergency core cooling system pumps.
Radiological releases were evaluated and found to be within the
regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50.67, Accident Source Terms.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions,
they do not significantly increase the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The non-safety-related Replacement Steam Dryer (RSD) must
function to maintain structural integrity and avoid generation of
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The RSD analyses demonstrate
the structural integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at EPU
conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power
level for BFN from the current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3458
MWt to 3952 MWt. An evaluation of the equipment that could be
affected by the power uprate has been performed. No new accident
scenarios or equipment failure modes were identified. The full
spectrum of accident considerations was evaluated and no new or
different kinds of accidents were identified. For BFN, the standard
evaluation methods outlined in the CLTR, ELTR1, ELTR2, PUSAR, FUSAR,
and fuel related reports were applied to the capability of existing
or modified safety-related plant equipment. No new accidents or
event precursors were identified.
All SSCs previously required for mitigation of a transient
remain capable of fulfilling their intended design functions. The
proposed increase in power does not adversely affect safety-related
systems or components and does not challenge the performance or
integrity of any safety-related systems. The change does not
adversely affect any current system interfaces or create any new
interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a
different kind than was previously evaluated. Operating at the
proposed EPU power level does not create any new accident initiators
or precursors.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident
initiators and by maintaining their current function they do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The new RSD does not have any new design functions. RSD analyses
demonstrate that the RSD will be capable of performing the design
function of maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, there are
no new or different kinds of accidents from those previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Based on the analyses of the proposed power increase, the
relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met without
significant adverse effects or reduction in margins of safety. The
analyses supporting EPU have demonstrated that the BFN SSCs are
capable of safely performing at EPU conditions. The analyses
identified and defined the major input parameters to the NSSS, and
NSSS design transients, and evaluated the capability of the primary
containment, NSSS fluid systems, NSSS and BOP components, as
appropriate. Radiological consequences of design basis events remain
within regulatory limits and are not increased significantly. The
analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are capable of achieving
EPU conditions without significant reduction in margins of safety,
with the modifications discussed in this application.
Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of
the power increase. Calculated loads on SSCs important to safety
have been shown to remain within design allowables under EPU
conditions for all design basis event categories. Plant response to
transients and accidents do not result in exceeding acceptance
criteria.
As appropriate, the evaluations that demonstrate acceptability
of EPU have been performed using methods that have either been
reviewed and approved by the NRC staff, or that are in compliance
with regulatory review guidance and standards established for
maintaining adequate margins of safety. These evaluations
demonstrate that there are no significant reductions in the margins
of safety.
Maximum power level is one of the inherent inputs that determine
the safe operating range defined by the accident analyses. The
Technical Specifications ensure that BFN is operated within the
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses.
The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are conservative
with respect to the operating conditions defined by the Technical
Specifications. The engineering reviews performed for the constant
pressure EPU confirm that the accident analyses criteria are met at
the revised maximum allowed thermal power of 3952 MWt. Therefore,
the adequacy of the renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe operating range is
also confirmed, and the increase in maximum allowable power level
does not involve a significant decrease in a margin of safety.
The modifications and methodology associated with the
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change
the design functions within the applicable limits. The credit is
associated with accident or event response and does not
significantly affect accident initiators by maintaining their
current functions and does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident. The proposed Technical Specifications
associated with these modifications ensure that BFN is operated
within the bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident
analyses.
The steam dryer is being replaced in order to ensure adequate
margin to the established structural requirements is maintained. The
new RSD does not have any new design functions and an analysis was
performed to confirm it will be capable of maintaining its
structural integrity. The power ascension test plan will verify that
the RSD conservatively meets the vibration and stress requirements.
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.
[[Page 43668]]
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
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 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
[[Page 43669]]
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of June 2016.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-14999 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P