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, 53455-53464 [2014-19880]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
organizations representing federal
employees. The Secretary has appointed
the following individuals to a three-year
term on FACOSH:
Federal employee representatives:
• Carolyn D. Bland-Bowles, American
Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees;
• Dennis P. Phelps, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and
• Mark J. Segall, National Association
of Agriculture Employees.
Federal agency management
representatives:
• Wesley J. Carpenter, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency;
• Wayne Quillin, U.S. Department of
State; and
• Maureen Sullivan, U.S. Department
of Defense.
Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health,
directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C.
668, 5 U.S.C. 7902, 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
Executive Orders 12196 and 13511,
Secretary of Labor’s Order 1–2012 (77
FR 3912 (1/25/2012)), 29 CFR Part 1960,
and 41 CFR Part 102–3.
Signed at Washington, DC on September 4,
2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014–21373 Filed 9–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
September 24, 2014
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The one item is open to the
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
8595 Special Investigation Report—
Railroad and Rail Transit Roadway
Worker Protection.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)
314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 or by
email at Rochelle.Hall@ntsb.gov by
Wednesday, September 17, 2014.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
Dated: Friday, September 5, 2014.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–21570 Filed 9–5–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0190]
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, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to
intervene; order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of six amendment
requests. The amendment requests are
for Fermi 2; Beaver Valley Power
Station, Units 1 and 2; Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant; South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2; Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; and Wolf
Creek Generating Station. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes
to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration. In
addition, each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by
October 9, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by November 10, 2014.
Any potential party as defined in § 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 September 19, 2014.
SUMMARY:
Sunshine Act Meeting
TIME AND DATE:
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov.
Schedule updates, including weatherrelated cancellations, are also available
at www.ntsb.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi
Bing at (202) 314–6403 or by email at
bingc@ntsb.gov.
FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Weiss, (202) 314–6100 or by email at
eric.weiss@ntsb.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53455
You may submit comments
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–2014–0190. 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,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0190 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0190.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53456
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–
0190 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 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
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’s regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the NRC’s Web site at https://
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
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
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.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 https://
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 https://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
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53457
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 NRC’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 public Web site at https://
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. 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
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53458
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50–
341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 2,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14183B528.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request pertains to the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
implementation schedule change in the
completion date for Milestone 8.
Milestone 8 pertains to the date that full
implementation of the CSP for all safety,
security, and emergency preparedness
functions will be achieved.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
The amendment proposes a change to the
Fermi 2 Cyber Security Plan (CSP) M8 full
implementation date as set forth in the Fermi
2 CSP Implementation Schedule. The
revision of the full implementation date for
the Fermi 2 CSP does not involve
modifications to any safety-related structures,
systems or components (SSCs). The
implementation schedule provides a
timetable for fully implementing the Fermi 2
CSP. The CSP describes how the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be
implemented to identify, evaluate, and
mitigate cyber-attacks up to and including
the design basis cyber-attack threat, thereby
achieving high assurance that the facility’s
digital computer and communications
systems and networks are protected from
cyber-attacks. The revision of the Fermi 2
CSP Implementation Schedule will not alter
previously evaluated design basis accident
analysis assumptions, add any accident
initiators, modify the function of the plant
safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant
safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The implementation of the Fermi 2 CSP
does not introduce new equipment that could
create a new or different kind of accident,
and no new equipment failure modes are
created. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation to the
public. The proposed amendment does not
alter the way any safety-related SSC
functions and does not alter the way the
plant is operated.
The CSP provides assurance that safetyrelated SSCs are protected from cyberattacks. The proposed amendment does not
introduce any new uncertainties or change
any existing uncertainties associated with
any safety limit. The proposed amendment
has no effect on the structural integrity of the
fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure
boundary, or containment structure. Based
on the above considerations, the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amendment does not degrade the confidence
in the ability of the fission product barriers
to limit the level of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a 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: Bruce R. Maters,
DTE Energy, General Counsel—
Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza,
Detroit, MI 48226–1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334
and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS–1 and
BVPS–2) Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request:
December 23, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 14, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14002A086, and
ML14051A499, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would change the BVPS–1
and BVPS–2 facility operating license
and technical specifications.
Specifically, the amendment requests
review and approval to transition the
fire protection licensing basis at BVPS,
from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.48(b),
to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 805,
‘‘Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor
Electric Generating Plants.’’ The
adoption of NFPA–805, would provide
BVPS with a risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection
program, and allow them to make
changes to their fire protection program
without prior NRC approval, only if the
changes would not adversely affect the
plant’s ability to achieve and maintain
safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
Operation of BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 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 BVPS–1 and
BVPS–2. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect accident initiators nor alters
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 shut down the reactor and to maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition will remain
capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment
is to permit BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements of 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
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314)]. 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 50,
Appendix R-required 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 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 50 and meets the
underlying intent of the NRC’s existing fire
protection regulations and guidance. It also
achieves defense in depth 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
assumed 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. Therefore,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not increased with the
implementation of the proposed amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
Response: No.
Operation of BVPS–1 and BVPS–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 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 fire
protection licensing basis which complies
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and
10 CFR 50.[4]8(c) and the guidance in
Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1 will not
result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect accident initiators or 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 the proposed amendment
is to permit BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision
1. 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 50,
Appendix R-required 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 requirements of NFPA
805 have been met.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address
only fire protection 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 kind of accident
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
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 BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 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 [Large Early Release
Frequency] LERF criteria from Section 5.3.5
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53459
of NEI 04–02 and of Regulatory Guide 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
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. This 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 functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment
is to permit BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(c) and the guidance in Regulatory
Guide 1.205, Revision 1. 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 50, Appendix Rrequired 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
requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
The proposed changes are evaluated to
ensure that risk and safety margins are kept
within acceptable limits. Therefore, the
transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured
to implement the NRC’s mission of the
protection of 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 Regulatory Guide 1.174 [An Approach for
using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in RiskInformed Decisions on Plant-Specific
Changes to the Licensing Basis (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100910006)] and is
consistent with the defense in depth
philosophy while maintaining sufficient
safety margins.
[Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.]
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W.
Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G.
Schaaf.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53460
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: July 15,
2013, as supplemented by letters dated
January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April
29, 2014, and May 9, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13200A185,
ML14035A297, ML14077A291,
ML14153A498, and ML14132A189,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would allow for a transition
to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel
design and implementation of AREVA
safety analysis methods at the MNGP.
The transition to the AREVA ATRIUM
10XM fuel design would permit use at
Extended Power Uprate conditions with
operation in the Maximum Extended
Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA)
power-flow operating domain.
Specifically, NSPM proposed to revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.3,
‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’
to add AREVA analysis methodologies
to the list of approved methods used in
determining core operating limits.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota also proposes to (1) revise TS
2.1, ‘‘SL [Safety Limits],’’ to change the
steam dome pressure associated with
safety limits when using AREVA safety
analysis methods, and (2) insert an
editorial change to TS 4.2.1, ‘‘Reactor
Core, Fuel Assemblies,’’ to add ‘‘water
channel,’’ in addition to the current
‘‘water rod,’’ to reflect the design of the
AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel assembly
design feature.
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, with minor editorial revisions
designated in brackets ([ ]):
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Changing fuel designs and making an
editorial change to TS will not increase the
probability of a Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA). The fuel cannot increase the
probability of a primary coolant system
breach or rupture, as there is not interaction
between the fuel and the system piping. The
fuel will continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46,
[‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors,’’] limits. Therefore, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
consequences of a LOCA will not be
increased.
The probability of a Control Rod Drop
Accident (CRDA) does not increase because
the ATRIUM 10XM fuel channel is
mechanically compatible with the coresident fuel and existing control blade
designs. The mechanical interaction and
friction forces between the ATRIUM 10XM
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 CRDA is not
increased with the use of ATRIUM 10XM
fuel. CRDA consequences are evaluated on a
cycle-specific basis, confirming the number
of calculated rod failures remains within the
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
design basis. Similarly, changing the fuel
design and making an editorial change to TS
cannot increase the probability of an
anticipated operation 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 cycle-specific basis, ensuring the specified
acceptable fuel design limits continue to be
met. Therefore, the consequences of a
previously evaluated AOO will not increase.
A disposition of the plant’s postulated
accidents with radiological consequences
indicated that the consequences of only two
accidents could be affected by the proposed
change in fuel type; the LOCA and the CRDA.
Revised dose analyses using the approved
Alternative Source Term methodology at
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) rated power
concluded that the change in fuel type
resulted in small variations in the
radiological source term for the reactor core
and a corresponding slight difference in the
overall dose consequences. At no location
did the calculated dose increase more than
two percent compared to previouslysubmitted radiological dose at EPU power
levels. Dose consequences for the LOCA and
CRDA with an ATRIUM 10XM fuel source
term remained well below the regulatory
limits of 10 CFR 50.67, [‘‘Accident source
term,’’] and Regulatory Guide 1.183,
[‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear
Power Reactors.’’]
The proposed change to Reactor Core
Safety Limits involves a technical evaluation
that demonstrates the range of applicability
for the AREVA Critical Power Correlations
will always bound the postulated pressures
of plant transients using the AREVA safety
analysis methodology. As a technical
evaluation, this proposed change involves no
physical change to a system, structure,
component, or setpoint. Therefore, the
proposed change in no way can affect the
probability or the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed activity does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.]
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The ATRIUM 10XM fuel product has been
designed to maintain neutronic, thermalhydraulic, and mechanical compatibility
with the co-resident fuel designs currently in
use at MNGP. The ATRIUM 10XM 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 an editorial
change to TS 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 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.
Also, as a technical evaluation, the
proposed change to Reactor Core Safety
Limits involves no physical change to a
system, structure, component, or setpoint.
Therefore, this proposed change could in no
way introduce a new physical interaction
that would create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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.
The ATRIUM 10XM fuel is designed to
comply with the fuel licensing criteria
specified in NUREG–0800. Cycle-specific and
cycle-independent safety analyses are
performed ensuring no fuel failures will
occur as the result of anticipated operational
occurrences, and dose consequences for
accidents remain with the bounds of 10 CFR
50.67. Applicable regulatory margins and
requirements are maintained.
The proposed change to Reactor Core
Safety Limits is consistent with, and within
the capabilities of the applicable NRC
approved critical power correlation, and thus
continues to ensure that valid critical power
calculations are performed. No setpoints at
which protective actions are initiated are
altered by the proposed change. The
proposed change does not alter the manner
in which the safety limits are determined.
This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability
requirements; thus, previously evaluated
accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass,
Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354,
50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request:
December 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 23, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14016A079 and
ML14174B239, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Hope
Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and
2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone
8 full implementation date as set forth
in the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule.
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 amendment proposes a change to the
PSEG Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 (M8)
full implementation date as set forth in the
PSEG CSP Implementation Schedule. The
revision of the full implementation date for
M8 does not involve modifications to any
safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). Rather, the
implementation schedule provides a
timetable for fully implementing the PSEG
CSP. The CSP describes how the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be
implemented to identify, evaluate, and
mitigate cyber attacks up to and including
the design basis cyber attack, thereby
achieving high assurance that the facility’s
digital computer and communications
systems and networks are protected from
cyber attacks. The revision of the PSEG CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter
previously evaluated design basis accident
analysis assumptions, add any accident
initiators, modify the function of plant safetyrelated SSCs, or affect how any plant safetyrelated SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 implementation of the PSEG CSP does
not introduce new equipment that could
create a new or different kind of accident,
and no new equipment failure modes are
created. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation (dose
or exposure) to the public. The proposed
amendment does not alter the way any
safety-related SSCs function and does not
alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP
provides assurance that safety-related SSCs
are protected from cyber attacks. The
proposed amendment does not introduce any
new uncertainties or change any existing
uncertainties associated with any safety
limit. The proposed amendment has no effect
on the structural integrity of the fuel
cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above
considerations, the proposed amendment
does not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the
level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the
public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G.
Schaaf.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 8,
2014, as supplemented by letter dated
May 8, 2014. Publicly-available versions
are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML14142A018 and ML14142A013,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53461
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendments
would revise the South Texas Project
(STP) Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 full implementation date as
set forth in the STP CSP Implementation
Schedule. The amendments would also
revise paragraph 2.H of Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–76 for STP,
Unit 1 and NFP–80 for STP, Unit 2, by
incorporating the revised CSP
implementation schedule.
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 amendment proposes a change to the
STP CSP Milestone 8 full implementation
date as set forth in the STP CSP
Implementation Schedule. The revision of
the full implementation date for the STP CSP
does not involve modifications to any safetyrelated structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule
provides a timetable for fully implementing
the STP CSP. The CSP describes how the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be
implemented to identify, evaluate, and
mitigate cyber attacks up to and including
the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby
achieving high assurance that the facility’s
digital computer and communications
systems and networks are protected from
cyber attacks. The revision of the STP CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter
previously evaluated design basis accident
analysis assumptions, add any accident
initiators, modify the function of the plant
safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant
safety related SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
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 implementation of the STP CSP does
not introduce new equipment that could
create a new or different kind of accident,
and no new equipment failure modes are
created. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53462
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
The margin of safety is associated with the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation to the
public. The proposed amendment does not
alter the way any safety related SSC
functions and does not alter the way the
plant is operated. The STP CSP provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed
amendment does not introduce any new
uncertainties or change any existing
uncertainties associated with any safety
limit. The proposed amendment has no effect
on the structural integrity of the fuel
cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above
considerations, the proposed amendment
does degrade the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to limit the level
of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the standards of
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
the NRC staff proposes to determine that
the request for amendments involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A. H.
Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: February
26, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14064A328.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information (SUNSI). The amendment
would revise Technical Specification
5.6.5, ‘‘CORE OPERATING LIMITS
REPORT (COLR),’’ to incorporate
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC’s
topical report WCAP–16009–P–A,
‘‘Realistic Large-Break LOCA Evaluation
Methodology Using the Automated
Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty
Method (ASTRUM),’’ January 2005, to
the list of analytical methods used to
determine the core operating limits. A
non-proprietary version of the topical
report, designated as WCAP–16009–NP–
A, is available in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML050910159 and
ML050910161.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification
5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA
[loss-of-coolant accident] analysis
methodology. Specifically, the proposed
change adds WCAP–16009–P–A to
Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for
establishing core operating limits.
Accident analyses are not accident
initiators; therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident. The analyses
using ASTRUM demonstrated that the
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46,
‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors,’’ were met. Large break LOCA
analyses performed consistent with the
methodology in Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) approved WCAP–16009–
P–A, including applicable assumptions,
limitations and conditions, demonstrate that
10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met;
thus, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an
accident. No physical changes to the plant
are associated with the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification
5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA
analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP–16009–P–A to
Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for
establishing core operating limits. There are
no physical changes being made to the plant
as a result of using the Westinghouse
ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP–
16009–P–A for performance of the large
break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA
analyses performed consistent with the
methodology in NRC approved WCAP–
16009–P–A, including applicable
assumptions, limitations and conditions;
demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria are met. No new modes of plant
operation are being introduced. The
configuration, operation, and accident
response of the structures or components are
unchanged by use of the new analysis
methodology. Analyses of transient events
have confirmed that no transient event
results in a new sequence of events that
could lead to a new accident scenario. The
parameters assumed in the analyses are
within the design limits of existing plant
equipment.
In addition, employing the Westinghouse
ASTRUM large break LOCA analysis
methodology does not create any new failure
modes that could lead to a different kind of
accident. The design of systems remains
unchanged and no new equipment or
systems have been installed which could
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
potentially introduce new failure modes or
accident sequences. No changes have been
made to instrumentation actuation setpoints.
Adding the reference to WCAP–16009–P–A
in Specification 5.6.5b. is an administrative
change that does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification
5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA
analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP–16009–P–A to
Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for
establishing core operating limits. The
analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that
the applicable acceptance criteria in 10 CFR
50.46 are met. Margins of safety for large
break LOCAs include quantitative limits for
fuel performance established in 10 CFR
50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being
changed by this proposed new methodology.
Large break LOCA analyses performed
consistent with the methodology in NRC
approved WCAP–16009–P–A, including
applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46
acceptance criteria are met; thus, this change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50–
341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334
and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS–1 and
BVPS–2) Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–
354, 50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
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 requester 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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 requester’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
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.
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 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53463
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. This
provision does not extend the time for
filing a request for a hearing and
petition to intervene, which must
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
2.309.
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 requester 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) officer if that officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A
party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination
granting access to SUNSI whose release
would harm that party’s interest
independent of the proceeding. Such a
challenge must be filed 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
3 Requesters 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\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53464
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 2014 / Notices
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 14th day
of August 2014.
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.
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; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for
access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows 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 petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
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.
10 ......................
60 ......................
20 ......................
25 ......................
30 ......................
40 ......................
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
provide adequate financial assurance
through an approved mechanism, but
will allow the NRC staff to further
evaluate whether the State of
Wyoming’s separate account provision
for financial assurance instruments it
holds is consistent with the NRC’s
requirement for a standby trust
agreement.
[FR Doc. 2014–19880 Filed 9–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 04009067; NRC–2014–0020]
Uranerz Energy Corporation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Temporary exemption; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a
temporary exemption from certain NRC
financial assurance requirements to
Uranerz Energy Corporation, (Uranerz)
in response to its annual financial
assurance update for the Nichols Ranch
in-situ recovery (ISR) Project. Issuance
of this temporary exemption will not
remove the requirement for Uranerz to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Sep 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2014–0020 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0020. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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.
INFORMATION CONTACT
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53455-53464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19880]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0190]
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 six amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Fermi 2; Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; Hope
Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1
and 2; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; and Wolf Creek Generating
Station. 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 October 9, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by November 10, 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 September 19, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 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-2014-0190. 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, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0190.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One
[[Page 53456]]
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 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 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.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
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's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's 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
[[Page 53457]]
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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
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/getting-started.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 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 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 NRC'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 public
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
[[Page 53458]]
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 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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B528.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license
amendment request pertains to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
implementation schedule change in the completion date for Milestone 8.
Milestone 8 pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP
for all safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved.
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.
The amendment proposes a change to the Fermi 2 Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) M8 full implementation date as set forth in the Fermi 2
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation
date for the Fermi 2 CSP does not involve modifications to any
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). The
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing
the Fermi 2 CSP. The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR
73.54 are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate
cyber-attacks up to and including the design basis cyber-attack
threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from
cyber-attacks. The revision of the Fermi 2 CSP Implementation
Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design basis accident
analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify the
function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant
safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The implementation of the Fermi 2 CSP does not introduce new
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and does not
alter the way the plant is operated.
The CSP provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber-attacks. The proposed amendment does not
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the
above considerations, the proposed amendment does not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit
the level of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 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: Bruce R. Maters, DTE Energy, General
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2)
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 14, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14002A086, and ML14051A499, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would change the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 facility operating license
and technical specifications. Specifically, the amendment requests
review and approval to transition the fire protection licensing basis
at BVPS, from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Section 50.48(b), to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants.'' The
adoption of NFPA-805, would provide BVPS with a risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection program, and allow them to make
changes to their fire protection program without prior NRC approval,
only if the changes would not adversely affect the plant's ability to
achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 53459]]
Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 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 BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alters 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 shut down the
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain
capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements of 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
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314)]. 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 50, Appendix R-required 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
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 50 and meets the
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations
and guidance. It also achieves defense in depth 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 assumed 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. Therefore, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not increased with the
implementation of the proposed 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 BVPS-1 and BVPS-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 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 fire protection
licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.[4]8(c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide
1.205, Revision 1 will not result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators or 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 the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. 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 50, Appendix R-required
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 requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection 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 kind of accident 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 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 BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 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 [Large Early Release Frequency] LERF criteria from Section
5.3.5 of NEI 04-02 and of Regulatory Guide 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 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. This 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 functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the guidance
in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. 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 50, Appendix R-required 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 requirements of
NFPA 805 have been met.
The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and
safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Therefore, the
transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured to
implement the NRC's mission of the protection of 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 Regulatory Guide
1.174 [An Approach for using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-
Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100910006)] and is consistent with the
defense in depth philosophy while maintaining sufficient safety
margins.
[Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.
[[Page 53460]]
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April 29, 2014, and May
9, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML13200A185, ML14035A297, ML14077A291, ML14153A498, and ML14132A189,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would allow for a transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel
design and implementation of AREVA safety analysis methods at the MNGP.
The transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel design would permit use at
Extended Power Uprate conditions with operation in the Maximum Extended
Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) power-flow operating domain.
Specifically, NSPM proposed to revise Technical Specification (TS)
5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add AREVA analysis
methodologies to the list of approved methods used in determining core
operating limits. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota also
proposes to (1) revise TS 2.1, ``SL [Safety Limits],'' to change the
steam dome pressure associated with safety limits when using AREVA
safety analysis methods, and (2) insert an editorial change to TS
4.2.1, ``Reactor Core, Fuel Assemblies,'' to add ``water channel,'' in
addition to the current ``water rod,'' to reflect the design of the
AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel assembly design feature.
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, with minor editorial revisions
designated in brackets ([ ]):
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Changing fuel designs and making an editorial change to TS will
not increase the probability of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA).
The fuel cannot increase the probability of a primary coolant system
breach or rupture, as there is not interaction between the fuel and
the system piping. The fuel will continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46,
[``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,''] limits. Therefore, the consequences
of a LOCA will not be increased.
The probability of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA) does not
increase because the ATRIUM 10XM fuel channel is mechanically
compatible with the co-resident fuel and existing control blade
designs. The mechanical interaction and friction forces between the
ATRIUM 10XM 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 CRDA is not increased with the use of
ATRIUM 10XM fuel. CRDA consequences are evaluated on a cycle-
specific basis, confirming the number of calculated rod failures
remains within the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) design
basis. Similarly, changing the fuel design and making an editorial
change to TS cannot increase the probability of an anticipated
operation 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 cycle-specific basis, ensuring the specified
acceptable fuel design limits continue to be met. Therefore, the
consequences of a previously evaluated AOO will not increase.
A disposition of the plant's postulated accidents with
radiological consequences indicated that the consequences of only
two accidents could be affected by the proposed change in fuel type;
the LOCA and the CRDA. Revised dose analyses using the approved
Alternative Source Term methodology at Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
rated power concluded that the change in fuel type resulted in small
variations in the radiological source term for the reactor core and
a corresponding slight difference in the overall dose consequences.
At no location did the calculated dose increase more than two
percent compared to previously-submitted radiological dose at EPU
power levels. Dose consequences for the LOCA and CRDA with an ATRIUM
10XM fuel source term remained well below the regulatory limits of
10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term,''] and Regulatory Guide
1.183, [``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.'']
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits involves a
technical evaluation that demonstrates the range of applicability
for the AREVA Critical Power Correlations will always bound the
postulated pressures of plant transients using the AREVA safety
analysis methodology. As a technical evaluation, this proposed
change involves no physical change to a system, structure,
component, or setpoint. Therefore, the proposed change in no way can
affect the probability or the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed activity does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.]
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The ATRIUM 10XM fuel product has been designed to maintain
neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical compatibility with the
co-resident fuel designs currently in use at MNGP. The ATRIUM 10XM
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 an editorial change to TS 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 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.
Also, as a technical evaluation, the proposed change to Reactor
Core Safety Limits involves no physical change to a system,
structure, component, or setpoint. Therefore, this proposed change
could in no way introduce a new physical interaction that would
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
[Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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.
The ATRIUM 10XM fuel is designed to comply with the fuel
licensing criteria specified in NUREG-0800. Cycle-specific and
cycle-independent safety analyses are performed ensuring no fuel
failures will occur as the result of anticipated operational
occurrences, and dose consequences for accidents remain with the
bounds of 10 CFR 50.67. Applicable regulatory margins and
requirements are maintained.
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits is consistent
with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC approved
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
[[Page 53461]]
proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14016A079 and ML14174B239, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Schedule.
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 amendment proposes a change to the PSEG Cyber Security Plan
(CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 (M8) full implementation
date as set forth in the PSEG CSP Implementation Schedule. The
revision of the full implementation date for M8 does not involve
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule provides a
timetable for fully implementing the PSEG CSP. The CSP describes how
the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify,
evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design
basis cyber attack, thereby achieving high assurance that the
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks
are protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the PSEG CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any
plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected.
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 implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public. The
proposed amendment does not alter the way any safety-related SSCs
function and does not alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP
provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber
attacks. The proposed amendment does not introduce any new
uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties associated with
any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no effect on the
structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure
boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above
considerations, the proposed amendment does not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit
the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated May 8, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14142A018 and ML14142A013, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the South Texas Project (STP) Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the STP
CSP Implementation Schedule. The amendments would also revise paragraph
2.H of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 for STP, Unit 1 and NFP-
80 for STP, Unit 2, by incorporating the revised CSP implementation
schedule.
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 amendment proposes a change to the STP CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the STP CSP Implementation
Schedule. The revision of the full implementation date for the STP
CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-related structures,
systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule
provides a timetable for fully implementing the STP CSP. The CSP
describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented
to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and
including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving
high assurance that the facility's digital computer and
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber
attacks. The revision of the STP CSP Implementation Schedule will
not alter previously evaluated design basis accident analysis
assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify the function of the
plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant safety related
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
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 implementation of the STP CSP does not introduce new
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
[[Page 53462]]
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
does not alter the way any safety related SSC functions and does not
alter the way the plant is operated. The STP CSP provides assurance
that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. The
proposed amendment does not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment has no effect on the structural integrity of
the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment
structure. Based on the above considerations, the proposed amendment
does degrade the confidence in the ability of the fission product
barriers to limit the level of radiation to the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14064A328.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING
LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to incorporate Westinghouse Electric Company
LLC's topical report WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA
Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated Statistical Treatment of
Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),'' January 2005, to the list of analytical
methods used to determine the core operating limits. A non-proprietary
version of the topical report, designated as WCAP-16009-NP-A, is
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML050910159 and ML050910161.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis
methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A
to Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for establishing core
operating limits.
Accident analyses are not accident initiators; therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident. The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated
that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria
for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors,'' were met. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent
with the methodology in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met; thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to the plant
are associated with the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a
method used for establishing core operating limits. There are no
physical changes being made to the plant as a result of using the
Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for
performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA
analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions; demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The
configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or
components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology.
Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event
results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new
accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within
the design limits of existing plant equipment.
In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA
analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that
could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems
remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been
installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or
accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation
actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in
Specification 5.6.5b. is an administrative change that does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a
method used for establishing core operating limits. The analyses
using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable acceptance criteria in
10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for large break LOCAs
include quantitative limits for fuel performance established in 10
CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being changed by this
proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses performed
consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A,
including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions,
demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met; thus,
this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
[[Page 53463]]
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2)
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
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 requester 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 requester'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.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
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 requester 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) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed 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\ Requesters 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
[[Page 53464]]
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 14th day of August 2014.
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....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows 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/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
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. 2014-19880 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P