Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information, 39052-39059 [E8-15301]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39052-39059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15301]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and 
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or 
Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to 
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards 
Information

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires 
the Commission 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 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 sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards 
information (SGI).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D44, Two

[[Page 39053]]

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received 
may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located 
at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a 
hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available 
records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
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/requestor 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/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital 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/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary

[[Page 39054]]

that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need 
not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, 
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) 
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 
request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access 
to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a 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. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
changes would allow for interim alternate steam generator tube repair 
criterion, as specified in the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3) 
technical specifications. The interim alternate repair criterion would 
be for the upcoming refueling outage and the subsequent operating 
cycle. The proposed request would also add three reporting criteria to 
the MPS3 technical specifications for steam generator tube inspections.
    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
    Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed 
changes affect only the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event 
evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB), locked rotor, 
and control rod ejection accident evaluations. Loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA) conditions cause a compressive axial load to act on 
the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube into the 
tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in this 
amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe 
shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F 
steam generators has shown that axial loading of the tubes is 
negligible during an SSE.
    At normal operating pressures, leakage from PWSCC [primary water 
stress-corrosion cracking] below 17 inches from the TTS [top of 
tubesheet] is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the 
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. 
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from 
cracks within the tubesheet region.
    For the SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam 
generator tubes is [are] maintained by limiting the allowable 
ligament size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to 
203 degrees below 17 inches from the TTS for the subsequent 
operating cycle. Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the 
hydraulic expansion region due to the constraint provided by the 
tubesheet. The potential for tube pullout is mitigated by limiting 
the allowable crack size to 203 degrees for the subsequent operating 
cycle. These allowable crack sizes take into account eddy current 
uncertainty and crack growth rate. It has been shown that a 
circumferential crack with an azimuthal extent of 203 degrees for 
the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval meets the 
performance criteria of NEI 97-06, Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program 
Guidelines'' and Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for 
Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized-water reactor] Steam Generator 
Tubes.'' Therefore, the margin against tube burst/pullout is 
maintained during normal and postulated accident conditions and the 
proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequence of a SGTR.
    The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure 
of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB 
event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting 
from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-
tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident 
conditions (including locked rotor and control rod ejection) has 
been shown to remain within the accident analysis assumptions for 
all axial or circumferentially oriented cracks occurring 17 inches 
below the top of the tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is 
limited to 150 gpd (approximately 0.10 gpm), the attendant accident 
condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from indications 
below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet, would be bounded by 
0.35 gpm. This value is within the accident analysis assumptions for 
the limiting design basis accident for MPS3, which is the postulated 
SLB event.
    Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev. 
2 and Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be

[[Page 39055]]

met and the proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new 
or different [kind of] accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms 
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 
Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant 
conditions upon implementation of the interim alternate repair 
criteria. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment 
or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing 
equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
    Therefore, based on the above evaluation, 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 maintains the required structural margins of 
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. 
NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the 
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology 
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations 
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method 
acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting GDC 14, 15, 31, and 32 by 
reducing the probability and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121 
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions of tube 
wall degradation beyond which tubes with unacceptable cracking, as 
established by inservice inspection, should be removed from service 
or repaired, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced. 
This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are 
consistent with the requirements of Section III of the ASME Code.
    For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube 
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 
circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube or the tube-to-
tubesheet weld, Reference 4 defines a length of remaining tube 
ligament that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due 
to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factors 
applied). Additionally, it is shown that application of the limited 
tubesheet inspection depth criteria will not result in unacceptable 
primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do 
not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety 
as defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or bases of 
the plant Technical Specifications.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, 
Waterford, CT 06385.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: October 19, 2007, supplemented by 
letters dated March 14, 2008, and March 26, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
changes would increase the allowed interval between local power range 
monitor (LPRM) calibrations from 1000 effective full power hours (EFPH) 
to 2000 EFPH as specified in the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 
Units 1 and 2, technical specifications. The proposed interval increase 
is enabled by improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear 
instrumentation that have occurred since LGS, Units 1 and 2, were 
originally licensed.
    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, with NRC staff annotations in 
brackets, 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 revises the surveillance interval for the 
Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM) calibrations from 1000 Effective 
Full Power Hours (EFPH) to 2000 EFPH. Increasing the frequency 
interval between required LPRM calibrations is acceptable due to 
improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear 
instrumentation and therefore, the revised surveillance interval 
continues to ensure that the LPRM detector signal is adequately 
calibrated.
    This proposed change will not alter the operation of process 
variables, structures, systems, or components as described in the 
LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does 
not alter the initiation conditions or operational parameters for 
the LPRM system and there is no new equipment introduced by the 
extension of the LPRM calibration interval. The performance of the 
APRM [average power range monitor], OPRM [oscillation power range 
monitor], RBM [rod block monitor], and 3D MONICORE [core monitoring] 
systems [are] not significantly affected by the proposed 
surveillance interval increase. As such, the probability of 
occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased.
    The radiological consequences of an accident can be affected by 
the thermal limits existing at the time of the postulated accident; 
however, LPRM chamber exposure has no significant effect on the 
calculated thermal limits since LPRM accuracy does not significantly 
deviate with exposure. For the LPRM extended calibration interval, 
the total [bundle] power uncertainty remains [within the accuracy 
assumptions of the thermal limit calculation]. Therefore, the 
thermal limit calculation is not significantly affected by LPRM 
calibration frequency, and thus the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE systems 
is not significantly affected by the proposed LPRM surveillance 
interval increase. The proposed change does not affect the control 
parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant 
equipment to transient conditions. The proposed change does not 
change or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation or 
failure mechanisms.
    Therefore, based on the above information, 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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change has no impact on equipment design or 
fundamental operation, and there are no changes being made to safety 
limits or safety system allowable values that would adversely affect 
plant safety as a result of the proposed LPRM surveillance interval 
increase. The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE 
systems is not significantly affected by the proposed change. The 
margin of safety can be affected by the thermal limits existing at 
the time of the postulated accident; however, uncertainties 
associated with LPRM chamber exposure have no significant effect on 
the calculated thermal limits. The thermal limit calculation is not 
significantly affected since LPRM sensitivity with exposure is well 
defined. LPRM accuracy, [even when including an allowance for an 
increased uncertainty associated with the LPRM update interval] 
remains within the [assumptions] in the thermal analysis basis; 
thereby maintaining thermal limits and the safety margin. The 
proposed change does

[[Page 39056]]

not affect safety analysis assumptions or initial conditions and 
therefore, the margin of safety in the original safety analyses are 
maintained.
    Therefore, based on the above information, 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, with changes in the areas noted above, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor 
Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6, 
``Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.7, 
``Control Room Emergency Filtration/Pressurization System (CREFS) 
Actuation Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.8, ``Penetration Room 
Filtration (PRF) System Actuation Instrumentation'' to adopt Completion 
Time, bypass test time, and Surveillance Requirement (SR) Frequency 
changes approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in WCAP-
14333-P-A, Revision 1, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the reactor 
protection system (RPS) and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times,'' 
October 1998 and WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment 
of the RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip 
Breaker Test and Completion Times,'' March 2003. In addition, the 
proposed amendments would revise SR 3.3.1.8 to adopt Surveillance 
Frequency changes approved by the NRC in Industry/Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) 
Change Traveler 242, Revision 1, ``Increase the time to perform a 
channel operational test (COT) on Power Range and Intermediate Range 
Instruments.'' Also, the proposed amendments would revise the 
Completion Times of limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.3.1, 
Condition F from 2 hours to 24 hours consistent with changes approved 
by the NRC in Industry/TSTF STS Change Traveler 246, Revision 0, ``RTS 
Instrumentation, 3.3.1 Condition F Completion Time.'' Finally, the 
proposed amendments would provide for minor editorial changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    Overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no 
hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS) 
and engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) 
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems 
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant 
design basis. These changes to the Technical Specifications do not 
result in a condition where the design, material, or construction 
standards that were applicable prior to the change are altered.
    The proposed changes will not modify any system interface. The 
proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event 
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an 
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related 
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There 
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident 
mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any 
assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological 
consequence evaluation in the updated [final safety analysis report] 
FSAR.
    The determination that the results of the proposed changes are 
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared 
for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for 
WCAP-15376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). 
Implementation of the proposed changes will not result in a 
significant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has been 
verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of the 
generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC 
Safety Evaluation conditions.
    The proposed changes to the Completion Times, bypass test times, 
and Surveillance Frequencies reduce the potential for inadvertent 
reactor trips and spurious ESF [engineered safety feature] 
actuations, and therefore, do not increase the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not change 
the response of the plant to any accidents and do not have a 
significant impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals. 
The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable, and the proposed 
changes will not result in a significant increase in the risk of 
plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the impact on 
plant safety as measured by the increase in core damage frequency 
(CDF) is less than 1.0E-06 per year and the increase in large early 
release frequency (LERF) is less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition, 
for the Completion Time changes, the incremental conditional core 
damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early 
release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08, 
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in 
Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS and 
ESFAS will continue to perform their functions with high reliability 
as originally assumed, and the increase in risk as measured by 
[Delta]CDF, [Delta]LERF, ICCDP, ICLERP risk metrics is within the 
acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not 
be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions 
and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    (2) Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant 
operation. No performance requirements will be affected or 
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in any hardware 
changes or physical alteration to any plant system, nor will there 
be any change in the method by which any safety-related plant system 
performs its safety function. There will be no setpoint changes or 
changes to accident analysis assumptions.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges 
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different

[[Page 39057]]

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for 
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis 
Limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings (LSSS), or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant 
systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection 
functions. There is no impact on the supporting RTS and ESFAS 
setpoint uncertainty calculations or the LSSS trip setpoint safety 
margin. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, DNBR 
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] limits, FQ, 
F[Delta]H, LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] PCT [peak cladding 
temperature], peak local power density, or any other margin of 
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed 
in the Standard Review Plan will continue to be met.
    Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity 
with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered 
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited 
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the 
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will 
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis. The calculated impact on risk is not significant and meets 
the acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 
1.177. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human 
factors benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test 
times, it is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a 
reduced potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations 
associated with testing.
    Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in 
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
    (a) Reduced testing will result in fewer inadvertent reactor 
trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, and less 
frequent distraction of operations personnel, without significantly 
affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability.
    (b) Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in 
monitoring and controlling plant operation will be realized. This is 
due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift 
supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short 
Completion Times.
    (c) The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers 
will provide additional time to complete test and maintenance 
activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced 
outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion 
Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the 
logic trains.
    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: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 
Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for 
Contention Preparation

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents 
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
    2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of 
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the 
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any 
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by 
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 
10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be 
considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI and/or SGI 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, MD 20852. The 
e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the 
General Counsel are HearingDocket@nrc.gov and OGCmail@nrc.gov, 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See footnote 6. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
    b. 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 (a);
    c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information 
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, 
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would 
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention;
    d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or 
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and 
information that shows:
    (i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful 
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and 
use (or evaluate) the requested information 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 demonstrates technical competence 
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a 
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective 
order; and
    e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), and a credit 
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI 
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI. 
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically, 
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the 
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration 
at 301-415-

[[Page 39058]]

0320.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in original ink, 
accompanied by a check or money order payable in the amount of $191.00 
to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual, and 
mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security Processing Unit, Mail 
Stop T-6E46, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name, 
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, 
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which 
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check.

    Note: Copies of these forms do not need to 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 
described above.

    4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all 
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including 
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will 
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
    5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten 
days of receipt of the written access 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) there is a 
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested. 
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the 
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the 
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in 
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the 
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, 
education, or experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI 
requested in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly 
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 requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will 
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether 
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will 
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's 
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from 
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at 
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection 
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
    7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
    a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to 
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
    b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a 
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed 
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
    c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms 
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
    d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning 
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued 
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the 
Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a 
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms 
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be 
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure 
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties 
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts 
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement 
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the 
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within ten (10) days, 
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff 
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access 
determination (and may participate in the development of such a 
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by 
the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or 
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a 
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a 
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall 
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of 
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the 
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or 
explain information. The requester 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 ten 
(10) 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. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an 
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a 
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
    In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge 
an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would 
harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a 
challenge must be filed within ten (10) days of the notification by the 
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
    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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule'' 
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency 
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that 
the filing requirements of that rule 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 
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding 
officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve 
requests for access

[[Page 39059]]

to SUNSI and/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. 
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2008.

    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 (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Day                             Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                          proposed action and opportunity for hearing,
                          including order with instructions for access
                          requests.
10.....................  Deadline for submitting requests for access to
                          SUNSI and/or 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 petitioner/requestor reply).
20.....................  NRC staff informs the requester of the staff's
                          determination whether the request for access
                          provides a reasonable basis to believe
                          standing can be established and shows (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,'' ``need to
                          know,'' or likelihood of standing, the
                          deadline for petitioner/requester to file a
                          motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                          staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy
                          of access determination with the presiding
                          officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
                          other designated officer, as appropriate). If
                          NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
                          deadline for any party to the proceeding whose
                          interest independent of the proceeding would
                          be harmed by the release of the information to
                          file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the
                          NRC staff's grant of access.
30.....................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                          reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.....................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                          need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                          complete information processing and file
                          motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                          Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                          licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for
                          SUNSI.
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, 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 determination either
                          before the presiding officer or another
                          designated officer.
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
B......................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-15301 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P