[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 728-738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0241]
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; 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 five amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Fermi 2; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Center for
Neutron Research Test Reactors; Joseph M.
[[Page 729]]
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it
involves no significant hazards consideration. Because the amendment
request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI) and safeguards information (SGI) an order imposes procedures to
obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 6, 2020. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 9, 2020. 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 January 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0241. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
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 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-2019-0241, 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 Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0241.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, 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-2019-0241, 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
https://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 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the
60-day period provided that its final determination is that the
amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition,
the Commission may issue the amendments 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.
[[Page 730]]
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 petition for leave 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. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right 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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in 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 must 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 the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must 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 the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) 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.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
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 establish 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 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 the 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 no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 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. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
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
his or her 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 and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate 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. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 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
[[Page 731]]
[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 submissions and
access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will
be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (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 website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is 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
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at https://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 6 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 adjudicatory documents 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
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``cancel'' when the
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access
any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. 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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19248C679.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would eliminate the license renewal license
condition based upon a proposed alternative to install neutron
absorbing inserts (i.e., NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts) in the
spent fuel pool (SFP) storage racks containing Boraflex. The amendment
also requests revision of technical specification (TS) requirements
associated with the SFP storage racks based on a new criticality safety
analysis. In addition, approval of the new criticality safety analysis,
including methodology, is being requested.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Renewed Facility Operating
License and TSs to reflect installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg]
rack inserts in SFP storage rack cells. The changes are necessary to
ensure that, without credit for Boraflex as a neutron absorbing
material as required by the License Renewal License Condition, the
effective neutron multiplication factor, k-effective, is less than
or equal to 0.95, if the spent fuel pool (SFP) is fully flooded with
unborated water. Since the proposed changes pertain only to the SFP,
only those accidents that are related to movement and storage of
fuel assemblies in the SFP could potentially be affected by the
proposed changes.
The installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their
credit in the criticality safety analysis does not result in a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
analyzed because there are no changes in the manner in which spent
fuel is handled, moved, or stored in the rack cells. The probability
that a fuel assembly would be dropped is unchanged by the
installation of the NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their
credit in the criticality safety analysis. These events involve
failures of administrative controls, human performance, and
equipment failures that are unaffected by the type of neutron
absorbing material utilized in the SFP racks.
The installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their
credit in the criticality
[[Page 732]]
safety analysis does not result in a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously analyzed because there is no
change to the fuel assemblies that provide the source term used in
calculating the radiological consequences of a fuel handling
accident. In addition, consistent with the current design, only one
fuel assembly will be moved at a time. Thus, the consequences of
dropping an insert with tooling or a fuel assembly onto any other
fuel assembly or other structure remain bounded by the previously
analyzed fuel handling accident. The proposed changes do not impact
the effectiveness of the other engineered design features, such as
isolation systems, that limit the dose consequences of a fuel
handling accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the Fermi 2 SFP is a
normal activity for which Fermi 2 has been designed and licensed. As
part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without
endangering the public health and safety, the ability to safely
accommodate different possible accidents in the SFP have been
previously analyzed. These analyses address accidents such as
radiological releases due to dropping a fuel assembly; potential
inadvertent criticality due to misloading a fuel assembly. The
proposed SFP storage configuration utilizing the NETCO SNAP-
IN[supreg] rack inserts does not change the method of fuel movement
or spent fuel storage and does not create the potential for a new
accident. The proposed changes also allow for the continued use of
SFP storage rack cells with Boraflex within those SFP storage rack
cells; however, no credit is taken for Boraflex as a neutron
absorbing material.
The rack inserts are passive devices. These devices, when inside
a SFP storage rack cell, perform the same function as the previously
licensed Boraflex neutron absorber panels in that cell. The NETCO
SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts do not add any limiting structural
loads or adversely affect the removal of decay heat from the
assemblies. No change in total heat load in the spent fuel pool is
being made. The insert devices will be monitored to ensure they
maintain their design function over the life of the spent fuel pool.
The existing fuel handling accident, which assumes the drop of a
fuel assembly and refueling mast, bounds the drop of a rack insert
and associated tools. This proposed change does not create the
possibility of misloading an assembly into a SFP storage rack cell.
Inadvertent removal of an insert, although largely precluded by
design and administrative controls, does not challenge
subcriticality requirements as explicitly demonstrated by the
criticality safety analysis.
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 NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts are being installed to
maintain the margin of safety in the SFP criticality safety
analysis. The NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts, once approved and
installed, will replace the existing Boraflex as the credited
neutron absorber for controlling spent fuel pool reactivity, even
though the Boraflex material will remain in place.
Fermi 2 TS 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' Specification 4.3.1.b requires
the SFP storage racks to maintain the effective neutron
multiplication factor, k-effective, less than or equal to 0.95 when
fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for
uncertainties. Therefore, for SFP criticality safety considerations,
the required safety margin is 5 percent.
The proposed changes ensure, as verified by the new criticality
safety analysis, that k-effective continues to be less than or equal
to 0.95, thus preserving the required safety margin of 5 percent.
In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel
assembly, considering the installed NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack
inserts, remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to a
fuel handling accident is unaffected by the addition of the inserts
in the SFP storage cells. The proposed changes also do not increase
the capacity of the SFP.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, DTE Electric Company concludes
that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration''
is justified.
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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 28, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19240A925.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would revise the current licensing basis for ONS,
Units 1, 2, and 3, regarding high energy line breaks (HELBs) outside of
the containment building. The license amendment request (LAR) also
includes revisions to the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)
in support of the revised HELB licensing basis. The proposed change
will establish normal plant systems, protected service water (PSW),
and/or the standby shutdown facility (SSF) as the assured mitigation
path following a HELB.
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.
A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the
design of structures, systems, or components and is not a design
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is
approximately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a
HELB will occur or increase the consequences from a HELB. This LAR
provides an overview of the HELB reanalysis, description of station
modifications that will be made because of the HELB reanalysis, and
the proposed mitigation strategies which now includes normal plant
equipment, the protected service water (PSW) system, and the standby
shutdown facility (SSF). The PSW and SSF systems are designed as
standby systems for use under emergency conditions. With the
exception of testing, the systems are not normally pressurized. The
duration of the test configuration is short as compared to the total
plant (unit) operating time. Due to the combination of the
infrequent testing and short duration of the test, pipe ruptures are
not postulated or evaluated for these systems.
Other systems have also been excluded based on the infrequency
of those systems operating at high energy conditions. Considerations
of HELBs is excluded (both breaks and cracks) if a high energy
system operates less than 1% of the total unit operating time such
as emergency feedwater or reactor building spray or if the operating
time of a system at high energy conditions is less than
approximately 2% of total system operating time such as low-pressure
injection. This is acceptable based on the very low probability of a
HELB occurring during the limited operating time of these systems at
high energy conditions. Gas and oil systems have been evaluated,
since these systems also possess limited energy.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced.
[[Page 733]]
For Turbine Building HELBs that could adversely affect equipment
needed to stabilize and cooldown the units, the PSW system or SSF
provides assurance that safe shutdown can be established and
maintained. For Auxiliary Building HELBs, normal plant systems or
the SSF provides assurance that safe shutdown can be established and
maintained.
As noted in Section 3.4 [of the LAR], Oconee Nuclear Station
plans to adopt the provisions of Branch Technical Position (BTP)
Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) 3-1, [``NRC Generic Letter 87-
11, Relaxation in Arbitrary Intermediated Pipe Rupture
Requirements,''] regarding the elimination of arbitrary intermediate
breaks for analyzed lines that include seismic loading. Guidance in
the BTP MEB 3-1 is used to define crack locations in analyzed lines
that include seismic loading. Adoption of this provision allows
Oconee Nuclear Station to focus attention to those high stress areas
that have a higher potential for catastrophic pipe failure. In
absence of additional guidance, Duke Energy uses NUREG/CR-2913 to
define the zone of influence for breaks and critical cracks that
meet the range of operating parameters listed in NUREG/CR-2913.
NUREG/CR-2913 provides an analytical model for predicting two-phase,
water jet loadings on axisymmetric targets that did not exist prior
in the Giambusso/Schwencer requirements.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequence 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.
A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the
design of structures, systems or components and is not a design
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is
approximately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a
HELB will create a new or different kind of accident. This LAR
provides an overview of the HELB analysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made because of the HELB reanalysis, and
the proposed mitigation strategies which now include normal plant
equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; therefore, the proposed does 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 margin of safety?
Response: No.
A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the
design of structures, systems, or components and is not a design
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is
appropriately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded
that the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in the margin
of safety. This LAR provides an overview of the HELB analysis,
descriptions of station modifications that will be made because of
the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed mitigation strategies which
now include normal plant equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
The changes described above provide a HELB licensing basis and
have no effect on the plant safety margins that have been
established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research Test Reactor, Montgomery County,
Maryland
Date of amendment request: July 5, 2019, as supplemented by letter
dated October 11, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML19197A045 and ML19289A494, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SGI. The amendment would revise the NIST security plan regarding its
physical security personnel.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only proposes slight changes to security
personnel and does not increase the probability or consequences of
any accident.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The possible changes to security personnel do not create a new
type of accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
No margin of safety is reduced by this proposed change in
security personnel, as the number of security personnel either
remains the same or increased.
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: Jennifer Nist, Deputy Chief Counsel for
NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
NRC Branch Chief: Greg Casto.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19275E393.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The proposed amendment would modify the TS 3.7.15 ``Spent Fuel
Assembly Storage'' and TS 4.3 ``Fuel Storage.'' The purpose of the
proposed changes is to update the spent fuel pool criticality safety
analysis and to account for the impact on the spent fuel for a future
measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate amendment request.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following
criticality events and accidents and no impacts were identified: (1)
Loss of spent fuel pool cooling system, (2) dropping a fuel assembly
into an already loaded storage cell, and (3) the misloading of a
single fuel assembly or multiple fuel assemblies into a cell for
which the restrictions on location, enrichment, or burnup are not
satisfied.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability
[[Page 734]]
of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because the changes in the
criticality safety analysis have no bearing on the systems,
structures, and components involved in initiating such an event. A
criticality safety analysis of the limiting fuel loading
configuration confirmed that the condition would remain subcritical
for a range of normal and accident conditions. The effects of the
accident conditions are bounded by the multiple fuel assembly
misload accident.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly being dropped into an
already loaded storage cell because fuel movement will continue to
be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. The consequences
of a dropped fuel assembly are not changed; there will continue to
be significant separation between the dropped fuel assembly and the
active regions of the fuel assemblies. The effects of this accident
are bounded by the multiple fuel assembly misload accident.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection
and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require
identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel
assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of
a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the multiple fuel assembly
misload accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a criticality
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 potential for criticality in the spent fuel pool is not a
new or different type of accident. Storage configurations allowed by
TSs 3.7.15 and 4.3 have been analyzed to demonstrate that the pool
remains subcritical.
The new criticality safety analysis includes analysis of a
multiple misload accident scenario; only single misload events were
previously analyzed. The inclusion of this analysis does not imply
the creation of the possibility of a new accident, but simply
expands the boundaries of the analyzed accident conditions to ensure
that all potential accidents are properly considered.
There is no significant change in plant configuration, equipment
design or usage of plant equipment. The updated criticality safety
analysis assures that the pool will continue to remain subcritical.
Therefore; the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of
safety for subcriticality required by Amendment No. 133 to Facility
Operating License No. NPF-2 and Amendment No. 125 to Facility
Operating License, No. NPF-8 for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML013130226) is unchanged. The updated
criticality safety analysis confirms that operation in accordance
with the proposed amendment continues to meet the required
subcriticality margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., P.O. Box 1295,
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19274C003.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would revise WBN, Unit 2, TS 3.4.17, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Tube Integrity''; TS 5.7.2.12, ``Steam Generator (SG)
Program''; and TS 5.9.9, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to
allow the use of Westinghouse leak-limiting non-nickel banded Alloy 800
sleeves to repair degraded SG tubes as an alternative to plugging the
tubes.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Westinghouse non-nickel banded Alloy 800 leak-limiting
repair sleeves are designed using the applicable American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code;
therefore, they meet the design objectives of the original SG
tubing. The applied stresses and fatigue usage for the repair
sleeves are bounded by the limits established in the ASME Code.
Mechanical testing has shown that the structural strength of repair
sleeves under normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions
provides margin to the acceptance limits. The acceptance limits
bound the most limiting (three times normal operating pressure
differential) burst margin recommended by Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes.''
Burst testing of sleeve/tube assemblies has demonstrated that no
unacceptable levels of primary-to-secondary leakage are expected
during any plant condition.
The Alloy 800 repair sleeve depth-based structural limit is
determined using the RG 1.121 guidance and the pressure stress
equation of ASME Code, Section III with additional margin added to
account for configuration of long axial cracks. A bounding detection
threshold value has been conservatively identified and statistically
established to account for growth and determine the repair sleeve/
tube assembly plugging limit. A sleeved tube is plugged on detection
of degradation in the sleeve/tube assembly.
Evaluation of the repaired SG tube testing and analysis
indicates no detrimental effects on the sleeve or sleeved tube
assembly from reactor system flow, primary or secondary coolant
chemistries, thermal conditions or transients, or pressure
conditions as may be experienced at WBN Unit 2. Corrosion testing
and historical performance of sleeve/tube assemblies indicates no
evidence of sleeve or tube corrosion considered detrimental under
anticipated service conditions.
The implementation of the proposed amendment has no significant
effect on either the configuration of the plant or the manner in
which it is operated. The consequences of a hypothetical failure of
the sleeve/tube assembly is bounded by the current SG tube rupture
(SGTR) analysis described in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR. Due to the
slight reduction in diameter caused by the sleeve wall thickness,
primary coolant release rates would be slightly less than assumed
for the SGTR analysis and; therefore, would result in lower total
primary fluid mass release to the secondary system. A main steam
line break or feedwater line break will not cause a SGTR because the
sleeves are analyzed for a maximum accident differential pressure
greater that that predicted in the WBN Unit 2 safety analysis. The
minimal leakage that could occur during repair of the sleeve/tube
assembly during plant operation is well within the TS leakage limits
when grouped with current alternate plugging criteria calculated
leakage values.
Therefore, TVA has concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Alloy 800 leak-limiting repair sleeves are designed using
the applicable ASME Code as guidance; therefore, it meets the
objectives of the original steam generator
[[Page 735]]
tubing. As a result, the functions of the SG will not be
significantly affected by the installation of the proposed sleeve.
The proposed repair sleeves do not interact with any other plant
systems. Any accident as a result of potential tube or sleeve
degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is bounded by the
existing SGTR accident analysis. The continued integrity of the
installed sleeve/tube assembly is periodically verified by the TS
requirements and the sleeved tube plugged on detection of
degradation.
The implementation of the proposed amendment has no significant
effect on either the configuration of the plant, or the manner in
which it is operated. Therefore, TVA concludes that this proposed
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The repair of degraded SG tubes with Alloy 800 leak-limiting
repair sleeves restores the structural integrity of the degraded
tube under normal operating and postulated accident conditions and
thereby maintains current core cooling margin as opposed to plugging
the tube and taking it out of service. The design safety factors
utilized for the repair sleeves are consistent with the safety
factors in the ASME Code used in the original SG design. The
portions of the installed sleeve/tube assembly that represent the
reactor coolant pressure boundary can be monitored for the
initiation of sleeve/tube wall degradation and affected tube plugged
on detection. Use of the previously identified design criteria and
design verification testing assures that the margin to safety is not
different from the original SG tubes.
Therefore, TVA concludes that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Docket No. 50-184,
Center for Neutron Research Test Reactor, Montgomery County, Maryland
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
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 Deputy
General Counsel for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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:
(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, NRC 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 C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the
requestor's
[[Page 736]]
trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can
only be submitted electronically through the Electronic Questionnaires
for Investigations Processing website, a secure website that is owned
and operated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 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 Administrative
Services, Mail Services Center, Mail Stop P1-37, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to
[email protected]. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy
the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation identification and criminal history
records check.
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $357.00 \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 OPMs
adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requestor or any individual(s) 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 a 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-07D04M, 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 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 are not 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
Agreement or Affidavit 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 receipt of (or access to) that information. 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.
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 a final adverse
determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the
proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration,
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(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.
[[Page 737]]
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to
standing or need to know for SGI 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 Office of Administration's
final adverse determination with respect to trustworthiness and
reliability for access to SGI by filing a request for review in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iv).
(5) 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 whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the
NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed 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.
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, 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/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 10th of December 2019.
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 NonSafeguards
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.
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 a
final 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 under 10 CFR
2.336(f)(1)(iv).
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of a decision by
a presiding officer or other designated
officer 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.
[[Page 738]]
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 opportunity to
request a hearing and petition for leave to
intervene), 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. 2019-26931 Filed 1-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P