[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68467-68474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23210]



[[Page 68467]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0194]


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; notice of opportunity to comment, 
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing 
procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; 
Columbia Generating Station; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem 
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Virgil C. Summer 
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. For each amendment request, the NRC 
proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards 
consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) an order imposes 
procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 3, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 5, 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 October 14, 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-2016-0194. 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: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0194, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject 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-2016-0194.
     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 this 
document.
     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-2016-0194, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, 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

[[Page 68468]]

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 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license or combined license. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 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 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 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
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 petitioner's interest. The petition 
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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 
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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support 
its position on the issue. 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 petitioner 
to relief. A 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 the NRC's 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 December 5, 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 
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

[[Page 68469]]

conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
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 (hereinafter 
``petition''), 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, as amended at 77 
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). 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 petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be 
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. 
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional 
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 Electronic 
Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 7 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 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
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 petition 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.
    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a 
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for 
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A 
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and 
served on the parties to the hearing.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528, 
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A336.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Technical

[[Page 68470]]

Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, to support the 
implementation of next generation fuel (NGF). In addition to the 
license amendment request (LAR), APS is requesting an exemption from 
certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for 
Emergency Core Cooling Systems [(ECCS)] for Light-Water Nuclear Power 
Reactors,'' and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to 
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel rod cladding 
material.
    The proposed change will allow for the implementation of NGF 
including the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding 
material. The NGF assemblies contain advanced features to enhance fuel 
reliability, thermal performance, and fuel cycle economics.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized 
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable 
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented 
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
    The NRC approved topical report CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A and 
Addendum 2-A addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates 
that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same 
properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding 
itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident 
probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has 
been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 design criteria and, therefore, 
will not increase the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any 
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated 
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved 
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety 
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The 
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC approved 
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core 
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the 
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation 
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and 
revisions will be met as described in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure 
to APS's letter dated July 1, 2016].
    Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 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 to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized 
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable 
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented 
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
    Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in 
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical 
report CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of 
Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of standard 
ZIRLO[supreg].
    Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will 
perform similarly to those fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg] 
thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident 
initiator and causing a new or different type of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any 
plant configuration or system performance. Changes to the calculated 
core operating limits may only be made using NRC approved 
methodologies, must be consistent with all applicable safety 
analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The 
proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved 
topical reports, as described, to the list of referenced core 
operating analytical methods. APS has demonstrated that the 
limitations and conditions contained in the NRC Safety Evaluation 
for these topical reports, and their various supplements and 
revisions as identified in Attachment 5 to [the enclosure to APS's 
letter dated July 1, 2016], will be met as described in Section 3.2.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 adds Optimized 
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding material as an acceptable 
material consistent with the permanent exemption request presented 
in Section 7 of [the] LAR.
    The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the 
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not 
significantly different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. 
Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to 
standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating, transient, and 
accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) 
and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, where the slight 
difference in Optimized ZIRLOTM material properties 
relative to standard ZIRLO[supreg] could have some impact on the 
overall accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using 
Optimized ZIRLOTM properties were performed. These LOCA 
analyses demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 
are satisfied when Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is 
implemented.
    Therefore, the proposed change to TS Section 4.2.1 does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed changes to TS Section 5.6.5 have no impact on any 
plant configuration or system performance. The proposed changes to 
TS Section 5.6.5 will add the NRC-approved topical reports, as 
described, to the list of referenced core operating analytical 
methods. The proposed changes do not amend the cycle specific 
parameter limits located in the PVNGS unit specific [core operating 
limits report (COLR)] from the values presently required by the TS. 
The individual specifications continue to require operation of the 
plant within the bounds of the limits specified in PVNGS unit 
specific COLR.
    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: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 18, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16183A365 and ML16231A511.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the operating license and technical 
specifications to implement an increase in rated thermal power from the 
current licensed thermal power of 3486 megawatts thermal (MWt) to a 
measurement uncertainty recapture thermal power of 3544 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?

[[Page 68471]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change will increase the Columbia Generating 
Station rated thermal power [(RTP)] from 3486 MWt to 3544 MWt. The 
reviews and evaluations performed to support the proposed uprated 
power conditions included all structures, systems and components 
that would be affected by the proposed changes. The reviews and 
evaluations determined that these structures, systems, and 
components are capable of performing their design function at the 
proposed uprated RTP of 3544 MWt. All accident mitigation systems 
will function as designed, and all performance requirements for 
these systems have been evaluated and were found acceptable.
    Thus, the proposed changes do not create any new accident 
initiators or increase the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The primary loop components (e.g., reactor vessel, reactor 
internals, control rod drive housings, piping and supports, and 
recirculation pumps) remain within their applicable structural 
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions.
    Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a structural 
failure of these components.
    The nuclear steam supply systems will continue to perform their 
intended design functions during normal and accident conditions. The 
balance of plant systems and components continue to meet their 
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their 
intended design functions.
    Thus, there is no increase in the probability of a failure of 
these components. The safety relief valves and containment isolation 
valves meet design sizing requirements at the uprated power level. 
Because the integrity of the plant will not be affected by operation 
at the uprated condition, Energy Northwest has concluded that all 
structures, systems, and components required to mitigate a transient 
remain capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
    The current safety analyses remain applicable, since they were 
performed at power levels that bound operation at a core power of 
3544 MWt. The results demonstrate that acceptance criteria of the 
applicable analyses continue to be met at the uprated conditions. As 
such, all applicable accident analyses continue to comply with the 
relevant event acceptance criteria. The analyses performed to assess 
the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. The source 
terms used to assess radiological consequences have been reviewed 
and determined to bound operation at the uprated condition.
    Power level is an input assumption to equipment design and 
accident analyses, but it is not a transient or accident initiator. 
Accident initiators are not affected by power uprate, and plant 
safety barrier challenges are not created by the proposed changes. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The proposed changes do 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 previously 
evaluated. All structures, systems and components previously 
required for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of 
fulfilling their intended design functions. The proposed changes 
have no adverse effects on any safety-related system or component 
and do not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related system.
    Plant operation at a RTP of 3544 MWt does not create any new 
accident initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded 
by the current accident analysis of record or recent evaluations 
demonstrate that applicable criteria are still met with the proposed 
changes. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margins of safety associated with the power uprate are those 
pertaining to core thermal power. Operation at the uprated power 
condition does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. Analyses of the primary fission product barriers have 
concluded that relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both from 
the standpoint of the integrity of the primary fission product 
barrier, and from the standpoint of compliance with the required 
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all evaluations have been 
performed using methods that have either been reviewed or approved 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or that are in compliance with 
regulatory review guidance and standards.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16190A248.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 
implementation schedule for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem 
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, this 
change would extend the PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) CSP Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the PSEG CSP implementation 
schedule and revise the Facility Operating Licenses.
    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 proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new 
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and 
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the

[[Page 68472]]

milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no 
substantive impact because other measures have been taken which 
provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because 
there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this 
change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplement by letter 
dated August 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16188A105 and ML16221A034, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the implementation date for Milestone No. 8 of 
the Cyber Security Plan.
    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 revises the Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule. 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 is a 
change to the completion date of Implementation Milestone 8, that in 
itself does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule. This proposed change to modify the 
completion date of Implementation Milestone 8 does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. 
This change also does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change 
revises the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. Because 
there is no change to these established safety margins as result of 
this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS), Docket Nos. STN 50-528, 
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 
(PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
    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\

[[Page 68473]]

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 provided access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is provided 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) an 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, as amended at 77 
FR 46562, August 3, 2012) 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 proposed 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 19th day of September, 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).

[[Page 68474]]

 
25...........................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                                likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                                petitioner/requester to file a motion
                                seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                                staff's denial of access; NRC staff
                                files copy of access determination with
                                the presiding officer (or Chief
                                Administrative Judge or other designated
                                officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff
                                finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
                                for any party to the proceeding whose
                                interest independent of the proceeding
                                would be harmed by the release of the
                                information to file a motion seeking a
                                ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant
                                of access.
30...........................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions
                                to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40...........................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing
                                and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
                                staff to complete information processing
                                and file motion for Protective Order and
                                draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline
                                for applicant/licensee to file Non-
                                Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A............................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                                officer or other designated officer
                                decision on motion for protective order
                                for access to sensitive information
                                (including schedule for providing access
                                and submission of contentions) or
                                decision reversing a final adverse
                                determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3........................  Deadline for filing executed Non-
                                Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided
                                to SUNSI consistent with decision
                                issuing the protective order.
A + 28.......................  Deadline for submission of contentions
                                whose development depends upon access to
                                SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
                                remain between the petitioner's receipt
                                of (or access to) the information and
                                the deadline for filing all other
                                contentions (as established in the
                                notice of hearing or opportunity for
                                hearing), the petitioner may file its
                                SUNSI contentions by that later
                                deadline.
A + 53.......................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                                contentions whose development depends
                                upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60.......................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                                reply to answers.
>A + 60......................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-23210 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P