Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 49298-49305 [2013-19320]

Download as PDF 49298 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2013–0171] Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene; order. AGENCY: Comments must be filed by September 12, 2013. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by October 15, 2013. Any potential party as defined in Section 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by August 23, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–0171. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN, 06A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Accessing Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES DATES: I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013– 0171 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–0171. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2013– 0171 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Background Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this notice. The Act requires the PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the 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 60day 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 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. 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 or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. 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 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 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’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49299 cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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’s Web site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 49300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC’s guidance available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 EFiling system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 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‘s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 Filing is considered complete by firstclass 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 NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http:// ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC’s Library at http://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’s Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: September 25, 2012, as supplemented by letter dated December 17, 2012. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12285A428. Description of amendment request: This license amendment request (LAR) contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). The LAR requests NRC review and approval for adoption of a new risk-informed, performance-based (RI–PB) fire protection licensing basis for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. The request is submitted in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), and the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, ‘‘Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,’’ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, ‘‘PerformanceBased Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants (2001),’’ and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–02, ‘‘Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c).’’ 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: Criterion 1: Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as described in the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), nor does it adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions as required by the accident analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of performing their design functions. E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices The purpose of this amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic risk assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have been met. NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC’s existing fire protection regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth along with the goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in NFPA 805, Chapter 1. In addition, if there are any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk as a result of the transition to NFPA 805, the increase will be small, governed by the delta risk requirements of NFPA 805, and consistent with the intent of the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy. Based on the above, the implementation of this amendment to transition the Fire Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), does not result in a significant increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated. In addition, all equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased with the implementation of this amendment. Criterion 2: Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Operation of BSEP, Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously analyzed accident with offsite dose consequences was included in the evaluation of design basis accidents (DBA) documented in the UFSAR as a part of the transition to NFPA 805. The proposed amendment does not impact these accident analyses. The proposed change does not alter the requirements or functions for systems required during accident conditions, nor does it alter the required mitigation capability of the fire protection program, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses and/ or DBA radiological consequences evaluations. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 design assumptions, or conditions of the facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to maintain the unit in a safe and stable condition remains capable of performing their design functions. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. As indicated in the Statements of Consideration, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features. The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the impacts of fire effects on the plant have been evaluated. The proposed fire protection program changes do not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the UFSAR. Based on this, as well as the discussion above, the implementation of this amendment to transition the Fire Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3: Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Operation of BSEP, Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The transition to a new riskinformed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment assumed in the UFSAR to mitigate accidents. The proposed change does not adversely impact systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. In addition, the proposed amendment will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without implementation of appropriate compensatory measures. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49301 The risk evaluations for plant changes, in part as they relate to the potential for reducing a safety margin, were measured quantitatively for acceptability using the delta risk guidance contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based methods of NFPA 805 do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As such, the proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Based on the above, the implementation of this amendment to transition the Fire Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), will not significantly reduce 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: Ms. Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Jessie Quichocho. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: February 28, 2013. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13070A307. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed license amendment would add three AREVA NP analysis methodologies to the list of approved methods to be used in determining core operating limits in Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). This proposed change would support a planned transition to AREVA ATRIUM– 10XM (XM) fuel design. In addition, the amendment would also revise TS 2.1.1.2 to change the safety limit minimum critical power ratio value for BFN Unit 2. 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: E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 49302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Changing the fuel design, adding the additional approved methodologies to the Technical Specifications, and revising the unit 2 SLMCPR [Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio] value in the Technical Specifications will not increase the probability of a LOCA [Loss-of-Coolant Accident]. The fuel cannot increase the probability of a primary coolant system breach or rupture, as there is no interaction between the fuel and the system piping. The fuel will continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46 limits for peak clad temperature, oxidation fraction, and hydrogen generation. Therefore, the consequences of a LOCA will not be increased. Similarly, changing fuel type and revising the Technical Specifications as proposed cannot increase the probability of an abnormal operating occurrence (AOO). As a passive component, the fuel does not interact with plant operating or control systems. Therefore, the fuel change cannot affect the initiators of the previously evaluated AOO transient events. Thermal limits for the new fuel will be determined on a reload specific basis, ensuring the specified acceptable fuel design limits continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences of a previously evaluated AOO will not increase. The refueling accident is potentially affected by a change in fuel design, due to the mechanical interaction between the fuel and the refueling equipment. However, the probability of the refueling accident with XM fuel is not increased because the upper bail handle is designed to be mechanically compatible with existing fuel handling equipment. The design weight of the XM design is similar to other designs in use at BFN, and is well within the design capability of the refueling equipment. The consequences of the refueling accident are similar to the current ATRIUM–10 fuel, remaining well within the design basis (7×7 fuel) evaluation in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. The probability of a control rod drop accident does not increase because the XM fuel channel is mechanically compatible with the co-resident ATRIUM–10 fuel, and the existing control blade designs. The mechanical interaction and friction forces between the XM fuel channel, and control blades, would not be higher than previous designs. In addition, routine plant testing includes confirmation of adequate control blade to control rod drive coupling. The probability of a rod drop accident is not increased with the use of XM fuel. Control rod drop accident consequences are evaluated on a cycle specific basis, confirming the number of calculated fuel rod failures remains with the UFSAR design basis. The dose consequences of all the previously evaluated UFSAR accidents remain with the limits of 10 CFR 50.67. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The XM fuel product has been designed to maintain neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical compatibility with the NSSS [nuclear steam supply system] vendor fuel designs. The XM fuel has been designed to meet fuel licensing criteria specified in NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ Compliance with these criteria ensures the fuel will not fail in an unexpected manner. A change in fuel design and revising the Technical Specifications as proposed cannot create any new accident initiators because the fuel is a passive component, having no direct influence on the performance of operating plant systems and equipment. Hence, a fuel design change cannot create a new type of malfunction leading to a new or different kind of transient or accident. Consequently, the proposed fuel design change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The XM fuel is designed to comply with the fuel licensing criteria specified in NUREG–0800. Reload specific and cycle independent safety analyses are performed ensuring no fuel failures will occur as the result of abnormal operational transients, and dose consequences for accidents remain with the bounds of 10 CFR 50.67. All regulatory margins and requirements are maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based on the above, TVA concludes the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant hazards consideration’’ is justified. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: March 27, 2013 (publicly available version is in PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ADAMS under Accession No. ML13092A392), as supplemented by letter dated May 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13141A291). Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed license amendment requests NRC approval to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1, ‘‘Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.’’ This license amendment request also follows the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute 04–02, Revision 2, ‘‘Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).’’ If approved, the BFN fire protection program would transition to a new riskinformed, performance-based alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by reference National Fire Protection Association Standard 805. 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 Technical Specification change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at BFN. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing their design functions. The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices 50, Appendix R fire protection features. Engineering analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based (RI–PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have been met. NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and meets the underlying intent of the NRC’s existing fire protection regulations and guidance, achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of NFPA 805. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) allows self approval of fire protection program changes post-transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core damage frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy. The improved modeling associated with the elimination of Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the implementation of this amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed technical specification change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Operation of BFN in accordance with the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter the requirements or function for systems required during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in new or different accidents. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions. The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features. The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated. Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a new accident. The improved modeling associated with the elimination of Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident initiators and by maintaining their current functions, they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the implementation of this amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed technical specification change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Operation of BFN in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design function. The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The improved modeling associated with the elimination of Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design functions within the applicable limits. Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that the risk and safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49303 to implement the NRC’s mission to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. NFPA 805 is also consistent with the key principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the DID philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention Preparation Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI. B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A ‘‘potential party’’ is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 49304 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555–0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1 The request must include the following information: (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice; (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party’s particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the 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. D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether: (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI. E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI. F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is 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 contentions by that later deadline. G. Review of Denials of Access. (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial. (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff’s adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer. H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party’s interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access. If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.3 I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have 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 5th day of August 2013. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rochelle C. Bavol, Acting Secretary of the Commission. Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information in This Proceeding Day Event/Activity 0 ...................................................... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 10 .................................................... ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60 .................................................... 1 While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure 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. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3 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 request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices 49305 Day Event/Activity 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 need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ 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. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). (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. 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. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. Decision on contention admission. 25 .................................................... 30 .................................................... 40 .................................................... A ...................................................... A + 3 ............................................... A + 28 ............................................. A + 53 ............................................. A + 60 ............................................. >A + 60 ........................................... [FR Doc. 2013–19320 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446; NRC– 2013–0182] Luminant Generation Company LLC, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: License amendment application; withdrawal. AGENCY: Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0182 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, using any of the following methods: • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–0182. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ADDRESSES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Balwant K. Singal, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301– 415–3016; email: Balwant.singal@nrc.gov. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Luminant Generation Company LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated October 2, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12285A091), for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–87 and NPF–89 for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas. The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’ and TS 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ to relocate the TS requirements for the following instruments to the Technical Requirements Manual, a licenseecontrolled document: • Pressurizer Water Level—High (RTS Function No. 9), • Trip of all Main Feedwater Pumps (ESFAS Function No. 6.g), • ESFAS Interlock Reactor Trip, P–4 (ESFAS Function No. 8.a). The proposed changes would have relocated the TS requirements in their entirety and would not have resulted in deletion or alteration of any RTS or ESFAS requirements. The proposed relocation of the TS requirements for these RTS and ESFAS instrument Functions was based on the application of TS criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 CFR) paragraph 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2013 (78 FR 4472). However, by letter dated July 25, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13218A100), the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49298-49305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19320]



[[Page 49298]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0171]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, opportunity 
to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene; order.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 12, 2013. A request for a 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by October 15, 
2013. Any potential party as defined in Section 2.4 of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is 
necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by 
August 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0171. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN, 06A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0171 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0171.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0171 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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 or combined license, as applicable, 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the 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

[[Page 49299]]

Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    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 or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 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 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's 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 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email 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 http://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 agency's public Web 
site at http://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's 
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 http://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

[[Page 49300]]

for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document 
Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's guidance available on the 
NRC's public Web site at http://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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 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`s Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
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 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 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC's Library at http://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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 17, 2012. A publicly available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML12285A428.
    Description of amendment request: This license amendment request 
(LAR) contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 
(SUNSI). The LAR requests NRC review and approval for adoption of a new 
risk-informed, performance-based (RI-PB) fire protection licensing 
basis for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. The request is 
submitted in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 
(c), and the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, ``Risk-
Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water 
Reactor Electric Generating Plants (2001),'' and Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 04-02, ``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, 
Performance-Based Fire Protection Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c).''
    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:

Criterion 1: Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 
and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect 
accident initiators or precursors as described in the BSEP Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), nor does it adversely alter 
design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility, 
and it does not adversely impact the ability of structures, systems, 
or components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate 
the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the way in 
which safety-related systems perform their functions as required by 
the accident analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the 
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain 
capable of performing their design functions.

[[Page 49301]]

    The purpose of this amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 
to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection 
licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance contained in 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
risk assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of 
NFPA 805 have been met.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative 
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 
10 CFR Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing 
fire protection regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-
depth along with the goals, performance objectives, and performance 
criteria specified in NFPA 805, Chapter 1. In addition, if there are 
any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk as a result of 
the transition to NFPA 805, the increase will be small, governed by 
the delta risk requirements of NFPA 805, and consistent with the 
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on the above, the implementation of this amendment to 
transition the Fire Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to one 
based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), does not 
result in a significant increase in the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    In addition, all equipment required to mitigate an accident 
remains capable of performing the assumed function.
    Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased with the implementation of this 
amendment.

Criterion 2: Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Operation of BSEP, Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or 
previously analyzed accident with offsite dose consequences was 
included in the evaluation of design basis accidents (DBA) 
documented in the UFSAR as a part of the transition to NFPA 805. The 
proposed amendment does not impact these accident analyses. The 
proposed change does not alter the requirements or functions for 
systems required during accident conditions, nor does it alter the 
required mitigation capability of the fire protection program, or 
its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the 
licensing basis analyses and/or DBA radiological consequences 
evaluations.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, or conditions of the 
facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the 
ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to 
maintain the unit in a safe and stable condition remains capable of 
performing their design functions. The purpose of the proposed 
amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire 
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. 
As indicated in the Statements of Consideration, the NRC considers 
that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance 
criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and 
features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix R fire protection features.
    The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire effects on the plant have been evaluated. The 
proposed fire protection program changes do not involve new failure 
mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different 
kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the UFSAR. Based 
on this, as well as the discussion above, the implementation of this 
amendment to transition the Fire Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 
and 2 to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 3: Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    Operation of BSEP, Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. The transition to a new risk-informed, performance-based 
fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) does not alter the manner in 
which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or 
the reliability of equipment assumed in the UFSAR to mitigate 
accidents.
    The proposed change does not adversely impact systems that 
respond to safely shut down the plant and maintain the plant in a 
safe shutdown condition. In addition, the proposed amendment will 
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis for an unacceptable period of time without implementation of 
appropriate compensatory measures. The purpose of the proposed 
amendment is to permit BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire 
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. 
The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology 
and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection 
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire protection features (69 FR 
33536, June 16, 2004).
    The risk evaluations for plant changes, in part as they relate 
to the potential for reducing a safety margin, were measured 
quantitatively for acceptability using the delta risk guidance 
contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, which may include 
engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire 
modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the 
performance-based methods of NFPA 805 do not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    As such, the proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk 
and safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Based on the 
above, the implementation of this amendment to transition the Fire 
Protection Plan at BSEP, Units 1 and 2 to one based on NFPA 805, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), will not significantly reduce 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: Ms. Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
M/C DEC45A, Charlotte NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie Quichocho.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2013. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13070A307.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment would add three AREVA NP analysis methodologies to 
the list of approved methods to be used in determining core operating 
limits in Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits 
Report (COLR). This proposed change would support a planned transition 
to AREVA ATRIUM-10XM (XM) fuel design. In addition, the amendment would 
also revise TS 2.1.1.2 to change the safety limit minimum critical 
power ratio value for BFN Unit 2.
    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:

[[Page 49302]]

1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Changing the fuel design, adding the additional approved 
methodologies to the Technical Specifications, and revising the unit 
2 SLMCPR [Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio] value in the 
Technical Specifications will not increase the probability of a LOCA 
[Loss-of-Coolant Accident]. The fuel cannot increase the probability 
of a primary coolant system breach or rupture, as there is no 
interaction between the fuel and the system piping. The fuel will 
continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46 limits for peak clad temperature, 
oxidation fraction, and hydrogen generation. Therefore, the 
consequences of a LOCA will not be increased.
    Similarly, changing fuel type and revising the Technical 
Specifications as proposed cannot increase the probability of an 
abnormal operating occurrence (AOO). As a passive component, the 
fuel does not interact with plant operating or control systems. 
Therefore, the fuel change cannot affect the initiators of the 
previously evaluated AOO transient events. Thermal limits for the 
new fuel will be determined on a reload specific basis, ensuring the 
specified acceptable fuel design limits continue to be met. 
Therefore, the consequences of a previously evaluated AOO will not 
increase.
    The refueling accident is potentially affected by a change in 
fuel design, due to the mechanical interaction between the fuel and 
the refueling equipment. However, the probability of the refueling 
accident with XM fuel is not increased because the upper bail handle 
is designed to be mechanically compatible with existing fuel 
handling equipment. The design weight of the XM design is similar to 
other designs in use at BFN, and is well within the design 
capability of the refueling equipment. The consequences of the 
refueling accident are similar to the current ATRIUM-10 fuel, 
remaining well within the design basis (7x7 fuel) evaluation in the 
UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
    The probability of a control rod drop accident does not increase 
because the XM fuel channel is mechanically compatible with the co-
resident ATRIUM-10 fuel, and the existing control blade designs. The 
mechanical interaction and friction forces between the XM fuel 
channel, and control blades, would not be higher than previous 
designs. In addition, routine plant testing includes confirmation of 
adequate control blade to control rod drive coupling. The 
probability of a rod drop accident is not increased with the use of 
XM fuel. Control rod drop accident consequences are evaluated on a 
cycle specific basis, confirming the number of calculated fuel rod 
failures remains with the UFSAR design basis.
    The dose consequences of all the previously evaluated UFSAR 
accidents remain with the limits of 10 CFR 50.67.

2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The XM fuel product has been designed to maintain neutronic, 
thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical compatibility with the NSSS 
[nuclear steam supply system] vendor fuel designs. The XM fuel has 
been designed to meet fuel licensing criteria specified in NUREG-
0800, ``Standard Review Plan for Review of Safety Analysis Reports 
for Nuclear Power Plants.'' Compliance with these criteria ensures 
the fuel will not fail in an unexpected manner.
    A change in fuel design and revising the Technical 
Specifications as proposed cannot create any new accident initiators 
because the fuel is a passive component, having no direct influence 
on the performance of operating plant systems and equipment. Hence, 
a fuel design change cannot create a new type of malfunction leading 
to a new or different kind of transient or accident.
    Consequently, the proposed fuel design change does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The XM fuel is designed to comply with the fuel licensing 
criteria specified in NUREG-0800. Reload specific and cycle 
independent safety analyses are performed ensuring no fuel failures 
will occur as the result of abnormal operational transients, and 
dose consequences for accidents remain with the bounds of 10 CFR 
50.67. All regulatory margins and requirements are maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, TVA concludes the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no 
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2013 (publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13092A392), as supplemented 
by letter dated May 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13141A291).
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment requests NRC approval to adopt a new fire protection 
licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a), 
10 CFR 50.48(c), and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 
1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire Protection for Existing 
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.'' This license amendment request also 
follows the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute 04-02, Revision 2, 
``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire 
Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).'' If approved, the BFN fire 
protection program would transition to a new risk-informed, 
performance-based alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which 
incorporates by reference National Fire Protection Association Standard 
805.
    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 Technical Specification change involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) in accordance with 
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. 
The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the 
analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at BFN. The proposed 
amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter 
design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility 
and does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) to perform their design function. SSCs 
required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a 
safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing 
their design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology 
and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection 
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 
CFR Part

[[Page 49303]]

50, Appendix R fire protection features. Engineering analyses, in 
accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to demonstrate that 
the risk-informed, performance-based (RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 
805 have been met.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative 
to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design 
Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and meets the underlying 
intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations and 
guidance, achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals, performance 
objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of NFPA 
805. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) allows self approval of fire 
protection program changes post-transition. If there are any 
increases post-transition in core damage frequency or risk, the 
increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the 
Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    The improved modeling associated with the elimination of 
Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design 
functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions, the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident 
remains capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the 
implementation of this amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed technical specification change create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Operation of BFN in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not 
alter the requirements or function for systems required during 
accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection 
licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not 
result in new or different accidents. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design 
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of 
SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain 
capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable 
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire 
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative 
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features.
    The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated. 
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind 
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not 
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a 
new accident.
    The improved modeling associated with the elimination of 
Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design 
functions of the systems. The systems are not accident initiators 
and by maintaining their current functions, they do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the implementation of this amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed technical specification change involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    Operation of BFN in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of 
equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed 
amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform 
their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor 
and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of 
performing their design function.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit BFN to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable 
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire 
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative 
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features. 
Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, 
probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, 
have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based 
methods do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    The improved modeling associated with the elimination of 
Containment Accident Pressure credit does not change the design 
functions within the applicable limits.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are 
evaluated to ensure that the risk and safety margins are kept within 
acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The requirements of 
NFPA 805 are structured to implement the NRC's mission to protect 
public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, 
and protect the environment. NFPA 805 is also consistent with the 
key principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in 
RG 1.174, is consistent with the DID philosophy, and maintains 
sufficient safety margins.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate

[[Page 49304]]

General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of 
the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery 
or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are 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 under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice;
    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description 
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed 
by the action identified in C.(1); and
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the 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.
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in 
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification 
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the 
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access 
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited 
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or 
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who 
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is 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 contentions by that later deadline.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely 
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying 
those petitioners who have standing and who have 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 5th day of August 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Day                            Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................  Publication of Federal Register
                                     notice of hearing and opportunity
                                     to petition for leave to intervene,
                                     including order with instructions
                                     for access requests.
10................................  Deadline for submitting requests for
                                     access to Sensitive Unclassified
                                     Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI)
                                     with information: supporting the
                                     standing of a potential party
                                     identified by name and address;
                                     describing the need for the
                                     information in order for the
                                     potential party to participate
                                     meaningfully in an adjudicatory
                                     proceeding.
60................................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                                     intervention containing: (i)
                                     demonstration of standing; (ii) all
                                     contentions whose formulation does
                                     not require access to SUNSI (+25
                                     Answers to petition for
                                     intervention; +7 petitioner/
                                     requestor reply).

[[Page 49305]]

 
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 need for SUNSI. (NRC staff
                                     also informs any party to the
                                     proceeding whose interest
                                     independent of the proceeding would
                                     be harmed by the release of the
                                     information.) If NRC staff makes
                                     the finding of need for SUNSI and
                                     likelihood of standing, NRC staff
                                     begins document processing
                                     (preparation of redactions or
                                     review of redacted documents).
25................................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' 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.
A.................................  If access granted: Issuance of
                                     presiding officer or other
                                     designated officer decision on
                                     motion for protective order for
                                     access to sensitive information
                                     (including schedule for providing
                                     access and submission of
                                     contentions) or decision reversing
                                     a final adverse determination by
                                     the NRC staff.
A + 3.............................  Deadline for filing executed Non-
                                     Disclosure Affidavits. Access
                                     provided to SUNSI consistent with
                                     decision issuing the protective
                                     order.
A + 28............................  Deadline for submission of
                                     contentions whose development
                                     depends upon access to SUNSI.
                                     However, if more than 25 days
                                     remain between the petitioner's
                                     receipt of (or access to) the
                                     information and the deadline for
                                     filing all other contentions (as
                                     established in the notice of
                                     hearing or opportunity for
                                     hearing), the petitioner may file
                                     its SUNSI contentions by that later
                                     deadline.
A + 53............................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                                     contentions whose development
                                     depends upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60............................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/
                                     Intervenor reply to answers.
>A + 60...........................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-19320 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P