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, 78402-78411 [2013-30843]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78402-78411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30843]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0272]


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, request a 
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2; Peach Bottom Atomic 
Power Station, Units 2 and 3; St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; and 
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment 
request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 27, 2014. A request for a 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by February 
24, 2014. Any potential party, as defined in Sec.  2.4 of Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI 
is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by 
January 6, 2014.

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0272. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, 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-2013-0272 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0272.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://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 document (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-2013-0272 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.

[[Page 78403]]

The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://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 NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires 
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed 
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
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 
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 petitions 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's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC Web site at https://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

[[Page 78404]]

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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC's 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC's guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an 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 Web site 
at https://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 the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
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

[[Page 78405]]

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 Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR'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 No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP), Unit 2, Darlington County, South 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2013. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13267A211 and ML13267A212.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request (LAR) proposes to transition the fire protection 
licensing basis from 10 CFR 50.48(b) and (c), National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire 
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 
Edition. This LAR requests that the NRC review and approve for adoption 
of a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), the guidance in Regulatory 
Guide (RG) 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire 
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' and NFPA 
805. The LAR also follows the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy 
Institute 04-02, Revision 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:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of the HBRSEP 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 HBRSEP 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.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit HBRSEP to adopt a new 
risk-informed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis 
that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), as 
well as the guidance contained in 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 HBRSEP 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.
    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 HBRSEP 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 remain capable of 
performing their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit HBRSEP 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 HBRSEP 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.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of HBRSEP 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 (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

[[Page 78406]]

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 HBRSEP 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 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 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 HBRSEP 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A 
Charlotte NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: June 10, 2013. A publicly 
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13175A109.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) 
Increase the allowable as-found safety relief valve (SRV) and safety 
valve (SV) lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) increase the required number of operable SRVs and SVs 
from 11 to 12; and (3) increase the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System 
pump discharge pressure from 1255 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) 
to 1275 psig.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes: (1) Revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.1 to increase the allowable as-
found Safety Relief Valve (SRV) and Safety Valve (SV) lift setpoint 
tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) revise TS 
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 to increase the 
required number of operable SRVs and SVs from 11 to 12; and; (3) 
revise TS SR 3.1.7.8 to increase the SLC System pump discharge 
pressure from 1255 psig to 1275 psig. As analyzed in Attachment 3 
[to the application dated June 10, 2013] (``Peach Bottom Atomic 
Power Station Units 2 and 3 Safety Valve Setpoint Tolerance Increase 
Safety Analysis Report,'' NEDC-33533P, Revision 1, dated May 2013), 
increasing the SRV/SV tolerance results in a change to the TS 
requirements for the number of SRVs/SVs required to be operable. 
However, this change does not alter the manner in which the valves 
are operated. Consistent with current TS requirements, the proposed 
change continues to require that the SRVs/SVs be adjusted to within 
1% of their nominal lift setpoints following testing. 
Since the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the 
valves are operated, there is no significant impact on reactor 
operation.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the 
valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. The 
proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components, with the exception of the SLC System pump discharge 
pressure. The proposed change to increase the SLC System pump 
pressure will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62, 
``Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients 
without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power 
plants,'' continue to be met. The SLC System is not an initiator to 
an accident; rather, the SLC System is used to mitigate an ATWS 
event.
    Therefore, these changes will not increase the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Generic considerations related to the change in setpoint 
tolerance were addressed in NEDC-31753P, ``BWROG [Boiling Water 
Reactor Owners Group] In-Service Pressure Relief Technical 
Specification Revision Licensing Topical Report,'' and were reviewed 
and approved by the USNRC in a safety evaluation dated March 8, 
1993. General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has completed 
plant-specific analyses to assess the impact of the setpoint 
tolerance increase on Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), 
Units 2 and 3. The plant specific evaluations, required by the 
USNRC's safety evaluation and performed to support this proposed 
change, show that there is no change to the design core thermal 
limits and adequate margin to the reactor vessel pressure limits 
using a 3% lift setpoint tolerance. These analyses also 
show that operation of Emergency Core Cooling Systems is not 
affected, and the containment response following a Loss-of-Coolant 
Accident (LOCA) is acceptable. The plant systems associated with 
these proposed changes are capable of meeting applicable design 
basis requirements and retain the capability to mitigate the 
consequences of accidents described in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes: (1) Revise TS SR 3.4.3.1 to increase the 
allowable as-found SRV and SV lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) revise TS Limiting Conditions for 
Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 to increase the required number of operable 
SRVs and SVs from 11 to 12; and; (3) revise TS SR 3.1.7.8 to 
increase the SLC System pump discharge pressure from 1255 psig to 
1275 psig. The proposed change to increase the SLC System pump 
pressure will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 continue 
to be met. The proposed change to increase the SRV/SV tolerance was 
developed in accordance with the provisions contained in the USNRC 
safety evaluation for NEDC-31753P. Additionally, Attachment 3 [to 
the application dated June 10, 2013] analyzes the tolerance increase 
which results in the increase in the required number of SRVs/SVs 
necessary to remain operable. SRVs/SVs installed in the plant 
following testing or refurbishment will continue to meet the current 
tolerance acceptance criteria of 1% of the nominal 
setpoint. The proposed change does not affect the manner in which 
the overpressure protection system is operated; therefore, there are 
no new failure mechanisms for the overpressure protection system.
    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to the 
valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. There 
is no alteration to the parameters within which the plant is 
normally operated. As a result, no new failure modes are being 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 78407]]

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints 
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. 
The proposed change does not modify the safety limits or setpoints 
at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the 
requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment 
assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. Additionally, 
this change will ensure that the reactor steam dome pressure shall 
be <=1325 psig as discussed in Safety Limit [SL] 2.1.2 (``Reactor 
Coolant System Pressure SL''). The proposed change to increase the 
SLC System pump discharge pressure will ensure that the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.62 continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, PA 19348.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Veronica Rodriguez.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant (PSL), Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 14, 2013. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML13088A173 and ML13170A156, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request (LAR) proposes to transition the fire protection 
licensing basis from 10 CFR 50.48(b) and (c), National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire 
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 
edition. This LAR requests that the NRC review and approve for adoption 
of a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), the guidance in Regulatory 
Guide (RG) 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire 
Protection for Existing Light-water Nuclear Power Plants,'' and NFPA 
805. The LAR also follows the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy 
Institute 04-02, Revision 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:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of PSL in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at PSL. 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 PSL 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 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 50, 
Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). 
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 (GDC) 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 the standard. The small increase in net change in core 
damage frequency associated with this License Amendment Request 
(LAR) submittal is consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal 
Policy. 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 (CDF) or risk, 
the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the 
Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. 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.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of PSL 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 was included in the evaluation 
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. 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 PSL 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 (69 FR 
33536; June 16, 2004).
    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.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created with the implementation of this amendment.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of PSL 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

[[Page 78408]]

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 PSL 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 (69 FR 
33536; June 16, 2004). 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.
    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.
    NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and the 
common defense and security because the overall approach of NFPA 805 
is consistent with the key principles for evaluating license basis 
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the defense-
in-depth (DID) philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
    Margins previously established for the PSL program in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.48(b) and Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 are not 
significantly reduced.
    Therefore, this LAR does not result in a reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 
33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2013, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 3, 2013. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML131960159 and ML13277A457, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) (security-
related). The amendment would permit the Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (the licensee) to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis 
based on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805, 
``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water 
Reactor Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition, at Diablo Canyon Power 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, of 
Revision 1 ``Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection for 
Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' December 2009.
    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 transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in accordance with 
the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of 
NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of design basis accidents 
(DBA) at DCPP. 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, or components (SSCs) to perform 
their design functions. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor 
and to maintain it in a safe shutdown (SSD) condition have been 
identified and remain available to perform their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt 
a new Fire Protection (FP) licensing basis which complies with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify FP requirements that are an acceptable 
alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to 
demonstrate that the deterministic and/or risk-informed, performance 
based (RI-PB) 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 FP 
regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and 
safety margin, and the goals, performance objectives, and 
performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of the standard and, if 
there are any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the 
increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the 
Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. 
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of 
performing the design function. The proposed amendment will not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological 
dose criteria will continue to be met. The consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not increased with the 
implementation of the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the transition to NFPA 805 create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of DCPP 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 off-site dose was included in the evaluation 
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter 
the requirements or function for systems required during accident 
conditions. Implementation of the new FP licensing basis which 
complies with the requirements of 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 shutdown the reactor and maintain 
it in a SSD condition remain capable of performing their design 
functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt 
a new FP licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 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 FP requirements that 
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R 
required FP features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, which may

[[Page 78409]]

include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, 
and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate 
that the performance based requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only FP and the impacts of 
fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated. Based on 
this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be 
introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse 
effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a 
result of this amendment. Therefore, the probability of a new or 
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated is not 
credible with the implementation of this amendment.
    Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the transition to NFPA 805 involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of DCPP in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
risk evaluation of plant changes, as appropriate, were measured 
quantitatively for acceptability using the [Delta]CDF and 
[Delta]LERF [large early release frequency] criteria from Section 
5.3.5 of NEI 04-02, Revision 2, and RG 1.205, Revision 1. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The UFSAR 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. This amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design 
function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to 
maintain it in a SSD condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PG&E to adopt 
a new FP 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 FP requirements that 
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R 
required FP features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to 
demonstrate that the RI-PB requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.
    Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant (PSL), Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California
    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 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

[[Page 78410]]

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 19th day of December, 2013.

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

   Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
                           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; and
                                        (ii) all contentions whose
                                        formulation does not require
                                        access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
                                        petition for intervention; +7
                                        petitioner/requestor reply).
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 petitioner/
                                        requestor 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.

[[Page 78411]]

 
>A + 60..............................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2013-30843 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P