[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78661-78670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0218]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures
for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and
Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant, Units 3 and 4; and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and
3. 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) and/or safeguards information (SGI), an order imposes
procedures to obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention
preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 8, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 9, 2017. Any potential party as
defined in Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), who believes access to SUNSI and/or SGI is necessary to respond
to this notice must request document access by November 18, 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-2016-0218. 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: C. Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0218, 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-2016-0218.
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-2016-0218, 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 and/or
SGI.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 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
[[Page 78662]]
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
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 the action. 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 Panel
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 proceeding. 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 request
permission to cross-examine 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) through (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 January 9, 2017. 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
[[Page 78663]]
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. 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 (1) request 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, 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.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the applications for amendment which are available
for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this
[[Page 78664]]
document, see the ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments''
section of this document.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No.: 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 24, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16152A045.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and
safeguards information (SGI). The amendment would replace the Crystal
River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant (CR-3) Physical Security Plan, Training and
Qualification Plan, and Safeguards Contingency Plan with a new combined
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Only Physical
Security Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, and Safeguards
Contingency Plan (altogether referred to as the PLAN). The PLAN will be
used at CR-3 after all spent fuel has been transferred to the CR-3
ISFSI.
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?
No.
The proposed PLAN and deletion of the cyber security plan will
become effective after all the spent nuclear fuel has been removed
from the Spent Fuel Pools (SFP) and there are no requirements to
return spent fuel to the SFP. The only current design basis accident
is the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), once the fuel is removed from
the pool and placed on the ISFSI pad, the FHA will no longer be
credible.
The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems,
structures, and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of
any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment
would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant
SSC. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a
previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed amendment does not involve significant physical
alteration of the plant. Minor modifications are associated with
this proposed amendment (e.g., wiring changes in security equipment,
the addition of telecommunications equipment, and software changes
to the security computer system). The proposed license amendment
would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of
any postulated accident. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a
new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure
mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. Therefore,
the proposed changes do 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?
No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR. Because the
10 CFR part 50 license for CR-3 no longer authorizes operation of
the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor
vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of
postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer
credible. The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The modifications
associated with this proposed amendment does not affect plant safety
or design margins. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323,
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis
Obispo County, California
Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated August 31, October 22, November 2, November 6, and
December 17, 2015; and February 1, February 10, April 21, June 9, and
September 15, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15176A539, ML15243A363, ML15295A470, ML15321A235,
ML15310A522, ML16004A363, ML16032A603, ML16041A533, ML16120A026,
ML16169A267, and ML16259A117, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) and Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt the alternative
source term (AST) as allowed by 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident source term.''
The AST methodology, as established in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183,
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML003716792), is used to calculate the offsite and control room
radiological consequences of postulated accidents for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1
and 2. The amendments would revise TS 1.1, ``Definitions,'' to change
the definition of Dose Equivalent I-131; TS 3.4.16, ``RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Specific Activity,'' to revise the noble gas activity
limit; TS 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' to require the 48-
inch containment purge supply and exhaust valves to be sealed closed
during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4; TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing
Program (VFTP),'' to change the allowable methyl iodide penetration
testing criteria for the auxiliary building system charcoal filter; and
TS 5.5.19, ``Control Room Habitability Program,'' to replace ``whole
body or its equivalent to any part of the body,'' with ``Total
Effective Dose equivalent (TEDE),'' which is the dose criteria
specified in 10 CFR 50.67. The amendments would also add license
conditions to Appendix D, ``Additional Conditions,'' of Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61486). The notice is being
reissued in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of
the amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
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.
This license amendment does not physically impact any system,
structure, or component (SSC) that is a potential initiator of an
accident. Therefore, implementation of AST, the AST assumptions and
inputs, the proposed TS changes, and new[chi]/Q [atmospheric
dispersion factors] values have no impact on the probability for
initiation of any design basis accident. Once the occurrence of an
accident has been postulated, the new accident source term and
[chi]/Q values are inputs to analyses that
[[Page 78665]]
evaluate the radiological consequences of the postulated events.
Reactor coolant specific activity, testing criteria of charcoal
filters, and the accident induced primary-to-secondary system
leakage performance criterion are not initiators for any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change to require the 48-inch
containment purge valves to be sealed closed during operating MODES
1, 2, 3, and 4 is not an accident initiator for any accident
previously evaluated. The change in the classification of a portion
of the 40-inch Containment Penetration Area Ventilation line is also
not an accident initiator for any accident previously evaluated.
Thus, the proposed TS changes and AST implementation will not
increase the probability of an accident.
The change to the decay time prior to fuel movement is not an
accident initiator. Decay time is used to determine the source term
for the dose consequence calculation following a potential FHA [fuel
handling accident] and has no effect on the probability of the
accident. Likewise, the change to the Control Room radiation
monitors setpoint cannot cause an accident and the operation of
containment spray during the recirculation phase is used for
mitigation of a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident], and thus not an
accident initiator.
As a result, there are no proposed changes to the parameters or
conditions that could contribute to the initiation of an accident
previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the AST cannot affect the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Regarding accident consequences, equipment and components
affected by the proposed changes are mitigative in nature and relied
upon once the accident has been postulated. The license amendment
implements a new calculation methodology for determining accident
consequences and does not adversely affect any plant component or
system that is credited to mitigate fuel damage. Subsequently, no
conditions have been created that could significantly increase the
consequences of any accidents previously evaluated.
Requiring that the 48-inch containment purge supply and exhaust
valves be sealed closed during operating MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4
eliminates a potential path for radiological release following
events that result in radioactive material releases to the
containment, thus reducing potential consequences of the event. The
auxiliary building ventilation system allowable methyl iodide
penetration limit is being changed, which results in more stringent
testing requirements, and thus higher filter efficiencies for
reducing potential releases.
Changes to the operation of the containment spray system to
require operation during the recirculation mode are also mitigative
in nature. While the plant design basis has always included the
ability to implement containment spray during recirculation, this
license amendment now requires operation of containment spray in the
recirculation mode for dose mitigation. DCPP [Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are]
designed and licensed to operate using containment spray in the
recirculation mode. As such, operation of containment spray in the
recirculation mode has already been analyzed, evaluated, and is
currently controlled by Emergency Operating Procedures. Usage of
recirculation spray reduces the consequence of the postulated event.
Likewise, the additional shielding to the Control Room and the
addition of a HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filter to the
TSC [Technical Support Center] ventilation system reduces the
consequences of the postulated event to the Control Room and TSC
personnel. Lowering the limit for DEX [Dose Equivalent XE-133]
lowers potential releases. By reclassifying a portion of the 40-inch
Containment Penetration Area Ventilation line to PG&E Design Class
I, this line will be seismically qualified, thus assuring that post-
LOCA release points are the same as those used for determining
[chi]/Q values.
The change to the decay time from 100 hours to 72 hours prior to
fuel movement is an input to the FHA. Although less decay will
result in higher released activity, the results of the FHA dose
consequence analysis remain within the dose acceptance criteria of
the event. Also, the radiation levels to an operator from a raised
fuel assembly may increase due to a lower decay time, however, any
exposure will continue to be maintained under 10 CFR 20 limits by
the plant Radiation Protection Program.
Plant-specific radiological analyses have been performed using
the AST methodology, assumption and inputs, as well as new [chi]/Q
values. The results of the dose consequences analyses demonstrate
that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed
event. Implementing the AST involves no facility equipment,
procedure, or process changes that could significantly affect the
radioactive material actually released during an event.
Subsequently, no conditions have been created that could
significantly increase the consequences of any of the events being
evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment does not alter or place any SSC in a
configuration outside its design or analysis limits and does not
create any new accident scenarios.
The AST methodology is not an accident initiator, as it is a
method used to estimate resulting postulated design basis accident
doses. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration that
supports implementation of the new methodology and supports
reduction in dose consequences. DCPP is designed and licensed to
operate using containment spray in the recirculation mode. This
change will not affect any operational aspect of the system or any
other system, thus no new modes of operation are introduced by the
proposed change.
The function of the radiation monitors has not changed; only the
setpoint has changed as a result of an assessment of all potential
release pathways. The continued operation of containment spray and
the radiation monitor setpoint change do not create any new failure
modes, alter the nature of events postulated in the UFSAR, nor
introduce any unique precursor mechanism.
Requiring the 48-inch containment purge valves to be sealed
closed during operating MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4 does not introduce any
new accident precursor. This change only eliminates a potential
release path for radionuclides following a LOCA.
The proposed TS testing criteria for the auxiliary building
ventilation system charcoal filters cannot create an accident, but
results in requiring more efficient filtration of potentially
released iodine. The proposed changes to the DEX activity limit, the
TS terminology, and the decay time of the fuel before movement are
also unrelated to accident initiators.
The only physical changes to the plant being made in support of
AST is the addition of Control Room shielding in an area previously
modified, the addition of a HEPA filter at the intake of the TSC
normal ventilation system, and the upgrade to the damper actuators,
pressure switches, and damper solenoid valves to support
reclassifying a portion of the Containment Penetration Area
Ventilation line to PG&E Design Class I. Both Control Room shielding
and HEPA filtration are mitigative in nature and do not have any
impact on plant operation or system response following an accident.
The Control Room modification for adding the shielding will meet
applicable loading limits, so the addition of the shielding cannot
initiate a failure. Upgrading damper actuators, pressure switches,
and damper solenoid valves involve replacing existing components
with components that are PG&E Design Class I. Therefore, the
addition of shielding, a HEPA filter, and upgrading components
cannot create a new or different kind of accident.
Since the function of the SSCs has not changed for AST
implementation, no new failure modes are created by this proposed
change. The AST change itself does not have the capability to
initiate accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementing the AST is relevant only to calculated dose
consequences of potential design basis accidents evaluated in
Chapter 15 of the UFSAR. The changes proposed in this license
amendment involve the use of a new analysis methodology and related
regulatory acceptance criteria. New atmospheric dispersion factors,
which are based on site specific meteorological data, were
calculated in accordance with regulatory guidelines. The proposed
TS, TS Bases, and UFSAR changes reflect the plant configuration that
will support implementation of the new methodology and result in
operation in accordance with regulatory guidelines that support the
revisions to the radiological analyses of the
[[Page 78666]]
limiting design basis accidents. Conservative methodologies, per the
guidance of RG 1.183, have been used in performing the accident
analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents are all
within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with the use of
AST methodology.
The change to the minimum decay time prior to fuel movement
results in higher fission product releases after a FHA. However, the
results of the FHA dose consequence analysis remain within the dose
acceptance criteria of the event.
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the dose
consequences of design basis accidents at the exclusion area, low
population zone boundaries, in the TSC, and in the Control Room are
within the corresponding acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183
and 10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological
consequences of these accidents is provided by meeting the
applicable regulatory limits, which are set at or below the 10 CFR
50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of safety is inherent in these
limits.
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16242A399.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment request proposes changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2* information. Specifically, the
proposed change clarifies in the UFSAR how the quality and strength of
a specific set of couplers welded to stainless steel embedment plates
already installed and embedded in concrete are demonstrated through
visual examination and static tension testing, in lieu of the
nondestructive examination requirements of American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) N690, ``Specification for Safety-Related Steel
Structures for Nuclear Facilities.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetration (PJP) welds
joining weldable couplers to stainless steel embedment plates as
being able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying
the AISC N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and
Section Q1.26.3 requirements for non-destructive examination (NDE)
on 10 percent weld populations, reexamination, and repair,
respectively. The proposed change does not affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events.
The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems. The change does not impact the
support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures.
There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed
change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds joining weldable couplers to
stainless steel embedment plates as being able to perform their
design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section
Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and Section Q1.26.3 requirements for
non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations,
reexamination, and repair, respectively. The proposed change does
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is
created.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the design
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the
couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of the PJP welds joining weldable couplers
to stainless steel embedment plates as being able to perform their
design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section
Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and Section Q1.26.3 requirements for
non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations,
reexamination, and repair, respectively. The proposed change
satisfies the same design functions as stated in the UFSAR. This
change does not adversely affect compliance with any design
function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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: July 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in
[[Page 78667]]
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16197A372.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule for Milestone 8 and the associated license condition in 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. 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 CSP Milestone 8 implementation
date. 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 an extension 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 CSP Implementation Schedule.
This proposed change to extend 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
extends the CSP 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
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 sensitive
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)).
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI
regulations.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any person
who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and
filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access
to SUNSI or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI, SGI, or both to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the
Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration,
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the
General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI and/or SGI
under these procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1);
(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the
need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this
adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why
publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be
sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention; and
(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who
would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the
identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the
requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain
the following information:
(a) A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know''
the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent
with the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the
statement must explain:
[[Page 78668]]
(i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is
necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a
specific contention in this proceeding; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to
meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff redaction of
information from requested documents before their release may be
appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do
not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered
contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its
counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or
assistant who satisfies these criteria.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by
10 CFR part 2, subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure
Web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requestor will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and email address. After providing this information, the requestor
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by
calling 1-630-829-9565, or by email to [email protected]. The
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR
part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI
must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history
records check.
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $333.00 \4\ to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of
Personnel Managements adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration,
Personnel Security Branch, will make final determination whether the
claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the
Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status
prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the
background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258;
however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need
to know, are still applicable.
Note: Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs
C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following
address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Personnel
Security Branch, Mail Stop TWFN-03-B46M, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.
These documents and materials should not be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.
D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the
requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and
accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The
NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, the NRC staff will
determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines
that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the NRC staff
will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been
granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the
requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order setting forth
terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to
SUNSI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that
the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the
Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals
are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the
requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will
be provided. Those conditions may include, but not be limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
\6\ by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively,
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days
after the requestor is granted access to that
[[Page 78669]]
information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the
petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for
filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing
or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI
contentions by that later deadline.
J. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination with respect to access to SUNSI by filing a challenge
within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding
officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has
been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law
Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with
that officer.
(4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI
whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the
proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief
Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff
of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a
timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR
part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target
schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th of October, 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
and Safeguards Information in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) and/or Safeguards
Information (SGI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding;
demonstrating that access should be granted
(e.g., showing technical competence for
access to SGI); and, for SGI, including
application fee for fingerprint/background
check.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for
intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner
reply).
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows (1)
need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI.
(For SUNSI, NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff makes the finding of need to
know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC
staff begins background check (including
fingerprinting for a criminal history
records check), information processing
(preparation of redactions or review of
redacted documents), and readiness
inspections.
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' no ``need to
know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a
motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
staff's denial of access; NRC staff files
copy of access determination with the
presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
Judge or other designated officer, as
appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need''
for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
proceeding whose interest independent of the
proceeding would be harmed by the release of
the information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
[[Page 78670]]
190...................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing,
need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness
and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to
file motion for Protective Order and draft
Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
determination that the proposed recipient of
SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note:
Before the Office of Administration makes an
adverse determination regarding access to
SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided
an opportunity to correct or explain
information.
205...................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a
final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or
reliability determination either before the
presiding officer or another designated
officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI and/or
SGI consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI and/
or SGI. However, if more than 25 days remain
between the petitioner's receipt of (or
access to) the information and the deadline
for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or
opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may
file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that
later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-26096 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P