Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating 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, 27094-27101 [2011-11225]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27094-27101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11225]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0098]


Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating 
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

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, NRC, or NRC staff) 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 
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) and 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (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; (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, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, 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 faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
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, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or at 
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible in the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) online in the 
NRC Library at 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

[[Page 27095]]

how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The 
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention 
should be permitted with particular reference to the following general 
requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's 
right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, 
or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any 
decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the 
specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have 
litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) 
a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant 
(or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and 
access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is 
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will 
be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in 
which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds 
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the NRC's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing 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 that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern

[[Page 27096]]

Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 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.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    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, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically in ADAMS online in 
the NRC Library at 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.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS), as 
they apply to the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage requirements in TS 
Section 3.7.16 and criticality requirements for Region I SFP and north 
tilt pit fuel storage racks, in TS Section 4.3. The criticality 
analyses supporting the proposed TS change for the Region I fuel 
storage racks reflect credit for fuel assembly burnup and soluble 
boron. Based on the analyses, the proposed change, in accordance with 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68, 
``Criticality accident requirements,'' would maintain the effective 
neutron multiplication factor (Keff) limits for Region I storage racks 
to less than 1.0 when flooded with water having a minimum boron 
concentration of 850 parts per million (ppm) during normal operations, 
and 1350 ppm during accident conditions.
    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.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of an 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool 
(SFP) racks when considering the presence of soluble boron in the 
pool water for criticality control and the proposed changes. The 
proposed changes credit fuel burnup and voiding of the gaps between 
the SFP rack individual storage cells. Fuel assembly placement would 
continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures and 
would be in accordance with the TS fuel storage rack configuration 
limitations.
    There is no significant increase in the consequences of the 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the SFP racks. The 
criticality analyses that credit fuel burnup and voiding of the gaps 
between the SFP rack individual storage cells demonstrate that the 
pool would remain subcritical with margin following an accidental 
misloading if the pool contains an adequate boron concentration. The 
TS 3.7.15 limitation on minimum SFP boron concentration and plant 
procedures together ensure that an adequate boron concentration will 
be maintained.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel 
assembly drop accident in the SFP when considering the presence of 
soluble boron in the SFP water for criticality control, credit fuel 
burnup, and voiding of the gaps between the SFP rack individual 
storage cells. The handling of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel is 
performed in accordance with site procedures in borated water. The 
criticality analysis has shown that the reactivity increase with a 
fuel assembly drop accident in both a vertical and horizontal 
orientation is bounded by the fuel assembly misloading accident. 
Therefore, in addition to there being no significant increase in the 
probability of a fuel assembly drop accident, the consequences of a 
fuel assembly drop accident in the SFP would not increase 
significantly due to the proposed change.
    The SFP TS 3.7.15 requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720 
ppm, which bounds the analysis for the proposed amendment. Soluble 
boron has been maintained in the SFP water as required by TS and 
controlled by procedures. The criticality safety analyses for Region 
I and Region II of the SFP credit the same soluble boron 
concentration of 850 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95 under normal 
conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95 under accident 
scenarios as does the analysis for the proposed change for Region I, 
Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E. In crediting soluble boron, in 
Region 1A, and soluble boron and burnup, in Regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 
1E, the SFP criticality analysis would have no effect on normal pool 
operation and maintenance. Credit for fuel burnup and voiding of the 
gaps between the SFP rack individual storage cells would have no 
effect on the normal SFP operation and maintenance. Thus, there is 
no change to the probability or the consequences of the boron 
dilution event in the SFP.
    Since soluble boron is maintained in the SFP water, 
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on 
normal pool operation and maintenance. Also, since soluble boron is 
present in the SFP, a dilution event has always been a possibility. 
The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from the SFP was 
evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this proposed 
amendment. The analyses use the same soluble boron concentrations as 
were used in previous analyses for the Region I and Region II spent 
fuel storage racks. The SFP Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E storage 
racks are analyzed to allow storage of the fuel applying

[[Page 27097]]

a burnup credit (for regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), a complete loss of 
Carborundum[reg] plates and complete voiding of the gaps between the 
SFP individual storage cells. A minimum margin of 0.0117 is 
calculated for the boron dilution events with respect to 10 CFR 
50.68 criteria, both borated and unborated. All abnormal conditions 
meet the 0.95 criterion at 1350 ppm of boron. Therefore, the 
limitations on boron concentration have not changed and would not 
result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences 
of a previously evaluated accident.
    There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the 
loss of normal cooling to the SFP water, when considering this 
change that credits fuel burnup, voiding of the gaps between the SFP 
rack individual storage cells, and the presence of soluble boron in 
the pool water for subcriticality control, since a high 
concentration of soluble boron is always maintained in the SFP.
    The criticality analyses documented in AREVA NP Inc. report ANP-
2858P-003, ``Palisades SFP Region 1 Criticality Evaluation with 
Burnup Credit,'' show, at a 95 percent probability and a 95 percent 
confidence level (95/95), that Keff is less than the regulatory 
limit in 10 CFR 50.68 of 0.95 under borated conditions, or the limit 
of 1.0 with unborated water. Therefore, the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any 
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.
    Spent fuel handling accidents have been analyzed in Sections 
14.11, ``Postulated Cask Drop Accidents,'' and 14.19, ``Fuel 
Handling Incident,'' of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
Criticality accidents in the SFP have been analyzed in previous 
criticality evaluations, which are the bases for the existing TS.
    The existing TS allow storage of fuel assemblies with a maximum 
planar average U-235 enrichment of 4.54 weight percent in the Region 
1A fuel storage rack, 4.34 weight percent in the Region 1B storage 
rack, and 3.05 weight percent in the 1E Region storage rack with the 
exception of one assembly in Region 1E having a maximum planar 
average U-235 enrichment of 3.26 weight percent. The proposed 
specifications would allow fuel enrichment to 4.54 weight percent in 
existing Regions 1B, and 1E and for new Regions 1C and 1D with 
minimum enrichment dependent burnup restrictions. The existing 
Region 1A enrichment of 4.54 weight percent is unchanged in the 
proposed specifications. The possibility of placing a fuel assembly 
with greater enrichment than allowed currently exists but is 
controlled by the fuel manufacturer's procedures and plant fuel 
handling procedures. These manufacturer's and plant procedural 
controls would remain in place. Changing the allowed enrichments 
does not create a new or different kind of accident.
    ENO considered the effects of a mispositioned fuel assembly. The 
proposed loading restrictions include locations that are prohibited 
from containing any fuel. Administrative controls are in place to 
restrict fuel moves to those locations. These controls include 
procedures to develop the plans for fuel movement and operation of 
the fuel handling equipment. These procedures include appropriate 
reviews and verifications to ensure that TS requirements are 
maintained.
    Furthermore, the existing TS contain limitations on the SFP 
boron concentration that conservatively bound the required boron 
concentration of the new criticality analysis. Currently, TS 3.7.15 
requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720 ppm. Since soluble 
boron is maintained in the SFP water, implementation of the proposed 
changes would have no effect on normal pool operation and 
maintenance. Since soluble boron is present in the SFP, a dilution 
event has always been a possibility. The loss of substantial amounts 
of soluble boron from the SFP was evaluated as part of the analysis 
in support of Amendment No. 207. The analysis also demonstrated 
that, due to the large volume of unborated water that would need to 
be added and displaced, and the long duration of the event, the 
condition would be detected and corrected promptly. The analyses 
that support the current request use the same soluble boron 
concentrations that were used in previous analyses for the Region I 
and Region II spent fuel storage racks. In the unlikely event that 
soluble boron in the SFP is completely diluted, the fuel in Region 
I, Regions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E of the SFP would remain 
subcritical by a design margin of at least 0.0117 delta K, so the 
Keff of the fuel in Region 1 would remain below 1.0.
    The combination of controls to prevent a mispositioned fuel 
assembly, the ability to readily identify and correct a dilution 
event, and the relatively high concentration of soluble boron 
supports a conclusion that a new or different kind of accident is 
not created.
    Under the proposed amendment, no changes are made to the fuel 
storage racks themselves, to any other systems, or to any plant 
structures. Therefore, the change will not result in any other 
change in the plant configuration or equipment design.
    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.
    Detailed analysis, with approved and benchmarked methods has 
shown, with a 95 percent probability at a 95 percent confidence 
level, that the Keff of the Region I, Region 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, 
fuel storage racks in the SFP, including biases, tolerances and 
uncertainties, is less than 1.0 with unborated water and is less 
than or equal to 0.95 with 850 ppm of soluble boron and burnup 
credited (for Regions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), along with complete 
voiding of the gaps between the individual storage cells in the SFP 
racks. In addition, the effects of abnormal and accident conditions 
have been evaluated to demonstrate that under credible conditions 
the Keff will not exceed 0.95 with 1350 ppm soluble boron and burnup 
credited. The current TS requirement for minimum SFP boron 
concentration is 1720 ppm, which provides assurance that the SFP 
would remain subcritical under normal, abnormal, or accident 
conditions.
    The current analysis basis for the Region I and Region II fuel 
storage racks is a maximum Keff of less than 1.0 when flooded with 
unborated water, and less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with 
water having a boron concentration of 850 ppm. In addition, the Keff 
in accident or abnormal operating conditions is less than 0.95 with 
1350 ppm of soluble boron. These values are not affected by the 
proposed change.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant 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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: July 26, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request (LAR) proposes a revision to the Facility Operating 
License (FOL) to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain 
in effect all provisions of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved cyber security plan (CSP). The LAR was submitted pursuant to 
Section 73.54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation (10 CFR) 
which requires licensees currently licensed to operate a nuclear power 
plant under 10 CFR Part 50 to submit a CSP for NRC review and approval.
    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. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.]
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
[FOL] to implement

[[Page 27098]]

and maintain a Cyber Security Plan as part of the facility's overall 
program for physical protection. Inclusion of the [CSP] in the FOL 
itself does not involve any modifications to the safety-related 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the [CSP] 
describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented 
to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and 
including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving 
high assurance that the facility's digital computer and 
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber 
attacks. The [CSP] will not alter previously evaluated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident analysis assumptions, 
add any accident initiators, or affect the function of the plant 
safety-related SSCs as to how they are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. [The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.]
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the 
need of any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis. It 
does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or 
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are 
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, 
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this 
proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those 
previously evaluated.
    3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.]
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any safety limit. The 
proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural integrity 
of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or 
containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: March 18, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
safeguards information (SGI). The amendments would revise the facility 
Physical Security Plan (PSP) by modifying an existing commitment 
concerning armed responders.
    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 requested amendment involves security activities that do not 
reduce the ability for the security organization to prevent 
radiological sabotage. The activities of the security organization 
are not accident initiators nor do they mitigate accidents.
    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.
    The proposed change involves functions of the security 
organization concerning utilization of personnel to implement the 
revised PlNGP defensive strategy. Analysis of the proposed change 
has not indicated nor identified a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce the number of armed 
responders committed to in the PlNGP PSP. The change will affect 
only the functions within the Security organization and has no 
impact upon nor causes a significant reduction in margin of safety 
for plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention 
Preparation.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive 
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)). 
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR Parts 
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI 
regulations.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice 
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any person 
who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and 
filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access 
to SUNSI or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI, SGI, or both to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the 
Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, 
Office of the General

[[Page 27099]]

Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier 
mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for 
the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are 
Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, 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;
    (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, staff redaction of 
information from requested documents before their release may be 
appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do 
not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a 
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory 
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the 
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its 
counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or 
assistant who satisfies these criteria.
    (b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive 
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The 
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to 
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 
10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the 
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form 
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic 
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure 
web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel 
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should 
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-492-3524.\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 e-mail address. After providing this information, the requestor 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original 
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form 
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by 
calling 301-415-7232 or 301-492-7311, or by e-mail to 
Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy 
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), which mandates 
that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for an FBI 
identification and criminal history records check;
    (d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $ 200.00 \4\ to 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the 
request for access has been submitted, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of 
Personnel Management's adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI 
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals 
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background 
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a 
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and 
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption 
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, 
Personnel Security Branch, will make 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: Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop TWB-05-B32M, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    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 
above.
    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 \5\ setting

[[Page 27100]]

forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent 
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to 
SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that 
the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of 
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the 
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and 
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the 
Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals 
are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the 
requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of 
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will 
be provided. Those conditions may include, but not be limited to, the 
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 
\6\ by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the 
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to 
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, 
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location 
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI 
protection requirements.
    I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days 
after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if 
more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted 
access to the information and the deadline for filing all other 
contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for 
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that 
later deadline.
    J. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC 
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or 
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse 
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and 
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed 
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness 
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided 
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an 
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
    (3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination with respect to access to SUNSI by filing a challenge 
within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding 
officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has 
been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 
unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law 
judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another 
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with 
that officer.
    (4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of 
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by 
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv). 
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.311.
    K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI 
whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the 
proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief 
Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff 
of its grant of access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a 
timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in 
identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded 
contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR 
Part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target 
schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May, 2011.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified
                    Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information in this Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Day                                                Event/Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................................  Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity
                                               to petition for leave to intervene, including order with
                                               instructions for access requests.
10..........................................  Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive
                                               Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and/or Safeguards
                                               Information (SGI) with information: Supporting the standing of a
                                               potential party identified by name and address; describing the
                                               need for the information in order for the potential party to
                                               participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding;
                                               demonstrating that access should be granted (e.g., showing
                                               technical competence for access to SGI); and, for SGI, including
                                               application fee for fingerprint/background check.
60..........................................  Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i)
                                               Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation
                                               does not require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25 Answers to
                                               petition for intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner reply).

[[Page 27101]]

 
20..........................................  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 an adverse determination regarding access
                                               to SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to
                                               correct or explain information.
205.........................................  Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC
                                               staff trustworthiness or reliability determination either before
                                               the presiding officer or another designated officer under 10 CFR
                                               2.705(c)(3)(iv).
A...........................................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other
                                               designated officer decision on motion for protective order for
                                               access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing
                                               access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
                                               final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.......................................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access
                                               provided to SUNSI and/or SGI consistent with decision issuing the
                                               protective order.
A + 28......................................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends
                                               upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more than 25 days
                                               remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
                                               information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
                                               established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
                                               the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that
                                               later deadline.
A + 53......................................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development
                                               depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60......................................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
A + 60......................................  Decision on contention admission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-11225 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P