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, 43661-43669 [2016-14999]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43661-43669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14999]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0118]


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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS); Duane Arnold Energy Center 
(DAEC); and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3. For 
each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it involves 
no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment 
request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 
(SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016. 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 July 15, 2016.

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-2016-0118. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0118 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-2016-0118.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

[[Page 43662]]

(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 White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0118, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    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 will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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 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 if 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. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal 
Register. If the Commission makes 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

[[Page 43663]]

must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the 
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
    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). 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 unless the 
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 
10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by 
September 6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the 
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' 
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for 
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that 
under Sec.  2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the 
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located 
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the 
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion 
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance 
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a 
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on 
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A 
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any 
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be 
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited 
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by 
September 6, 2016.

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

[[Page 43664]]

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 home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, 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.
    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.

Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Docket No. 50-298, Cooper 
Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: April 21, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16120A367.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the value of the Safety Limit Minimum Critical 
Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two recirculation loop operation (TLO) and for 
single recirculation loop operation (SLO) in the CNS Technical 
Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2 based on analysis performed for CNS 
operation in Cycle 30. Specifically, for TS 2.1.1.2, the amendment will 
change the value of the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) for TLO 
from greater than to equal to (>=) 1.11 to >= 1.12 and the value of the 
MCPR for SLO from >= 1.13 to >= 1.14.
    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 basis of the SLMCPR is to ensure no mechanistic fuel damage 
is calculated to occur if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPR 
values preserve the existing margin to transition boiling. The 
derivation of the revised SLMCPR for CNS, for incorporation into the 
Technical Specifications and its use to determine plant and cycle-
specific thermal limits, has been performed using Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission approved methods. The revised SLMCPR values do not change 
the method of operating the plant and have no effect on the 
probability of an accident, initiating event or transient.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for 
the CNS core reload design. These changes do not involve any new or 
different methods for operating the facility. No new initiating 
events or transients result from these changes.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do 
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 values of the proposed SLMCPR provide a margin of safety by 
ensuring that no more than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected to be in a 
boiling transition if the Minimum Critical Power Ratio limit is not 
violated. The proposed changes will ensure the appropriate level of 
fuel protection is maintained. Additionally, operational limits are 
established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR 
is not violated during all modes of operation. This will ensure that 
the fuel design safety criteria are met (i.e., that at least 99.9% 
of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal 
operation as well as anticipated operational occurrences).
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 43665]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shaun M. Anderson.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16077A229.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguard information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the DAEC Technical Specification (TS) Section 
4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage, Criticality,'' and TS Section 4.3.3, ``Fuel 
Storage, Capacity,'' in accordance with the spent fuel pool criticality 
safety analysis report enclosed in the application. The amendment would 
also add a new requirement to TS 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' for a 
Spent Fuel Pool Neutron Absorber Monitoring Program.
    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 proposed amendment involves a new spent fuel pool 
criticality safety analysis and proposes modified or new TS 
requirements. The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis 
does not involve a physical change to any plant system nor does it 
involve a change to any of the accident mitigation features 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, spent fuel storage racks, decay heat generation 
rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
significantly increase the probability of a fuel mis-positioning 
event because the new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis 
demonstrates that fuel assemblies that meet the new TS requirements 
can be stored in any spent fuel pool location without restriction.
    There is no dose consequence associated with an abnormal 
condition since the criticality safety analysis acceptance criteria 
preclude criticality and does not involve a radiological release.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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 proposed amendment involves a new spent fuel pool 
criticality safety analysis and proposes modified or new TS 
requirements. The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis 
does not involve a physical change to any plant system.
    The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, spent fuel storage racks, decay heat generation 
rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The 
proposed amendment does not change the method of fuel movement or 
fuel storage and does not create the potential for a new 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident Requirements, requires the 
spent and fresh fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron 
multiplication factor, keff, less than or equal to 0.95 
when fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance 
for uncertainties. Therefore, for criticality, the required safety 
margin is 5%, including a conservative margin to account for 
engineering and manufacturing uncertainties. The new spent fuel pool 
criticality safety analysis and proposed TS changes continue to 
satisfy this requirement.
    The new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis does not 
affect spent fuel heat generation or the spent fuel pool cooling 
systems. In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped 
fuel assembly remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to 
a fuel handling accident is unaffected by the implementation of the 
new spent fuel pool criticality safety analysis. The proposed change 
reduces the capacity of the spent fuel pool which either does not 
impact or increases the 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: Mr. William Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16145A250.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguard information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the DAEC Technical Specification (TS) Section 
2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs,'' to change the Safety Limit Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two recirculation loop operation and 
for single recirculation loop operation. The changes would reflect the 
cycle-specific analysis. The proposed amendment would also remove an 
outdated historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1.
    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 NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The SLMCPR ensures that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will 
not be susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or 
the most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The new 
SLMCPR values preserve the existing margin to the onset of 
transition boiling; therefore, the probability of fuel damage is not 
increased as a result of this proposed change.
    The determination of the new SLMCPRs has been performed using 
NRC-approved methods of evaluation. These plant-specific 
calculations are performed each operating cycle. The new SLMCPR 
values do not change the method of operating the plant; therefore, 
they have no effect on the probability of an accident initiating 
event or transient.
    The proposed change does not involve any plant modifications or 
operational changes that could affect system reliability or 
performance or that could affect the probability of operator error. 
The proposed change does not affect any postulated accident 
precursors, does not affect any accident mitigating systems, and 
does not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
    [The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1 
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.]
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 43666]]

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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that 
during normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, 
at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs are 
calculated using NRC-approved methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-
A, ``General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel.'' The 
proposed change does not involve any new modes of operation, any 
changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The new SLMCPRs 
have been shown to be acceptable for DAEC Cycle 26 operation. The 
core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-
approved methods. The proposed SLMCPRs or methods for establishing 
the core operating limits do not result in the creation of any new 
precursors to an accident. The proposed change does not involve any 
new or different methods for operating the facility. No new 
initiating events or transients result from the proposed change.
    [The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1 
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.] 
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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The new SLMCPRs have been calculated using NRC-approved methods 
of evaluation with plant and cycle-specific input values for the 
fuel and core design for the upcoming cycle of operation. The SLMCPR 
values ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be 
susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or the 
most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The MCPR 
operating limit is set appropriately above the safety limit value to 
ensure adequate margin when the cycle-specific transients are 
evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is maintained with the 
revised values.
    [The removal of the historical footnote from TS Table 3.3.5.1-1 
is administrative in nature and has no impact on accident analysis.]
    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: Mr. William Blair, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 13, December 15, December 15, and December 18, 
2015; and February 16, March 8, March 9, March 24, March 28, April 4, 
April 5, and April 14, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15282A154 (Package), ML15317A361, ML15351A097, 
ML15351A113, ML15355A413, ML16049A248, ML16069A142, ML16070A189, 
ML16085A143, ML16089A054, ML16095A293, ML16096A411, and ML16106A072, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would increase the authorized maximum steady-state reactor 
core power level for each unit from 3,458 megawatt thermal (MWt) to 
3,952 MWt. This amendment authorizes an increase of approximately 20 
percent above the original licensed thermal power (OLTP) level of 3,293 
MWt, and an increase of approximately 14.3 percent above the current 
licensed thermal power level of 3,458 MWt.
    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 proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power 
level for BFN from the current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3458 
MWt to 3952 MWt. Evaluations and analysis of the nuclear steam 
supply system (NSSS) and balance of plant (BOP) structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the power uprate 
were performed in accordance with the approaches described in the 
following.

 GE Nuclear Energy, ``Constant Pressure Power Uprate,'' 
NEDC-33004P-A (CLTR), Revision 4, dated July 2003
 GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Guidelines for General 
Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate,'' NEDC-32424P-
A (ELTR1), dated February 1999
 GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Evaluation of General Electric 
Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate,'' NEDC-32523P-A 
(ELTR2), dated February 1999

    The Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) summarizes the 
results of safety evaluations performed that justify uprating the 
licensed thermal power at BFN. The PUSAR uses GEH [General Electric-
Hitachi] GE14 fuel as the principal reference fuel type for the 
evaluation of the impact of EPU [extended power uprate]. However, 
the BFN units will utilize AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel, with some legacy 
ATRIUM 10 fuel, under EPU conditions. Therefore, the AREVA Fuel 
Uprate Safety Analysis Report (FUSAR) for Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, 
and 3 and fuel related reports are provided to supplement the PUSAR 
and address the impact of EPU conditions on the AREVA fuel in the 
BFN units. The AREVA analyses contained in the FUSAR have provided 
disposition of the critical characteristics of the GE14 fuel and 
have been shown to bound ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM 10 fuel.
    The fuel-related reports are as follows:

 ANP-3377, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA [Loss-of-
Coolant Accident] Break Spectrum Analysis for ATRIUM 10XM Fuel (EPU)
 ANP-3378, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA-ECCS 
[Emergency Core Cooling System] Analysis MAPLHGR Limits for ATRIUM 
10XM Fuel (EPU)
 ANP-3384, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 LOCA-ECCS Analysis 
MAPLHGR Limits for ATRIUM 10 Fuel (EPU)
 ANP-3342, Browns Ferry EPU (120% OLTP) Equilibrium Fuel 
Cycle Design
 ANP-3372, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 EPU (120% OLTP) LAR 
[License Amendment Request] Reference Fuel Cycle Design
 ANP-3404, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 Representative 
Reload Analysis at Extended Power Uprate
 ANP-3343, Nuclear Fuel Design Report Browns Ferry EPU (120% 
OLTP) Equilibrium Cycle ATRIUM 10XM Fuel
 ANP-3386, Mechanical Design Report for Browns Ferry Units 
1, 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate (EPU) ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assemblies
 ANP-3385, Mechanical Design Report for Browns Ferry Units 
1, 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate (EPU) ATRIUM 10 Fuel Assemblies
 ANP-3388, Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Browns 
Ferry Extended Power Uprate
 ANP-3327, Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic 
Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU
 FS1-0019629/30, Browns Ferry Unit 3 Cycle 19 MCPR [Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio] Safety Limit Analysis With SAFLIM3D 
Methodology
 ANP-2860 Revision 2, Supplement 2, Browns Ferry Unit 1--
Summary of Responses to Request for Additional Information, 
Extension for Use of ATRIUM 10XM Fuel for Extended Power Uprate
 ANP-2637, Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Methodology 
Compendium
 ANP-3409, Fuel-Related Emergent Regulatory Issues

    The evaluations concluded that all plant components, as 
modified, will continue to be capable of performing their design 
function at the proposed uprated core power level.

[[Page 43667]]

    The BFN licensing and design bases, including BFN accident 
analysis, were also evaluated for the effect of the proposed power 
increase. The evaluation concluded that the applicable analysis 
acceptance criteria continue to be met.
    Power level is not an initiator of any transient or accident; it 
is used as an input assumption to equipment design and accident 
analyses. The proposed change does not affect the release paths or 
the frequency of release for any accident previously evaluated in 
the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. SSCs required to mitigate 
transients remain capable of performing their design functions 
considering radiological consequences associated with the effect of 
the proposed EPU. The source terms used to evaluate the radiological 
consequences were reviewed and were determined to bound operation at 
EPU power levels. The results of EPU accident evaluations do not 
exceed NRC-approved acceptance limits.
    The spectrum of postulated accidents and transients were 
reviewed and were shown to meet the regulatory criteria to which BFN 
is currently licensed. In the area of fuel and core design, the 
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other 
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met. 
Continued compliance with the SLMPCR and other SAFDLs is confirmed 
on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by 
the NRC.
    Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were 
evaluated at the EPU conditions of pressure, temperature, flow, and 
radiation and found to meet the acceptance criteria for allowable 
stresses. Adequate overpressure margin is maintained.
    Challenges to the containment were also evaluated. The 
containment and its associated cooling system continue to meet 
applicable regulatory requirements. The calculated post event 
suppression pool temperatures remain within design limits, while 
ensuring adequate net positive suction head is maintained for 
required emergency core cooling system pumps.
    Radiological releases were evaluated and found to be within the 
regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50.67, Accident Source Terms.
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change 
the design functions of the systems. By maintaining these functions, 
they do not significantly increase the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The non-safety-related Replacement Steam Dryer (RSD) must 
function to maintain structural integrity and avoid generation of 
loose parts that may affect other SSCs. The RSD analyses demonstrate 
the structural integrity of the steam dryer is maintained at EPU 
conditions. Therefore, the RSD does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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 proposed change increases the maximum authorized core power 
level for BFN from the current licensed thermal power (CLTP) of 3458 
MWt to 3952 MWt. An evaluation of the equipment that could be 
affected by the power uprate has been performed. No new accident 
scenarios or equipment failure modes were identified. The full 
spectrum of accident considerations was evaluated and no new or 
different kinds of accidents were identified. For BFN, the standard 
evaluation methods outlined in the CLTR, ELTR1, ELTR2, PUSAR, FUSAR, 
and fuel related reports were applied to the capability of existing 
or modified safety-related plant equipment. No new accidents or 
event precursors were identified.
    All SSCs previously required for mitigation of a transient 
remain capable of fulfilling their intended design functions. The 
proposed increase in power does not adversely affect safety-related 
systems or components and does not challenge the performance or 
integrity of any safety-related systems. The change does not 
adversely affect any current system interfaces or create any new 
interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a 
different kind than was previously evaluated. Operating at the 
proposed EPU power level does not create any new accident initiators 
or precursors.
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change 
the design functions of the systems. The systems are not accident 
initiators and by maintaining their current function they do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    The new RSD does not have any new design functions. RSD analyses 
demonstrate that the RSD will be capable of performing the design 
function of maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, there are 
no new or different kinds of accidents from those previously 
evaluated.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Based on the analyses of the proposed power increase, the 
relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met without 
significant adverse effects or reduction in margins of safety. The 
analyses supporting EPU have demonstrated that the BFN SSCs are 
capable of safely performing at EPU conditions. The analyses 
identified and defined the major input parameters to the NSSS, and 
NSSS design transients, and evaluated the capability of the primary 
containment, NSSS fluid systems, NSSS and BOP components, as 
appropriate. Radiological consequences of design basis events remain 
within regulatory limits and are not increased significantly. The 
analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are capable of achieving 
EPU conditions without significant reduction in margins of safety, 
with the modifications discussed in this application.
    Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission 
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of 
the power increase. Calculated loads on SSCs important to safety 
have been shown to remain within design allowables under EPU 
conditions for all design basis event categories. Plant response to 
transients and accidents do not result in exceeding acceptance 
criteria.
    As appropriate, the evaluations that demonstrate acceptability 
of EPU have been performed using methods that have either been 
reviewed and approved by the NRC staff, or that are in compliance 
with regulatory review guidance and standards established for 
maintaining adequate margins of safety. These evaluations 
demonstrate that there are no significant reductions in the margins 
of safety.
    Maximum power level is one of the inherent inputs that determine 
the safe operating range defined by the accident analyses. The 
Technical Specifications ensure that BFN is operated within the 
bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident analyses. 
The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are conservative 
with respect to the operating conditions defined by the Technical 
Specifications. The engineering reviews performed for the constant 
pressure EPU confirm that the accident analyses criteria are met at 
the revised maximum allowed thermal power of 3952 MWt. Therefore, 
the adequacy of the renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications to maintain the plant in a safe operating range is 
also confirmed, and the increase in maximum allowable power level 
does not involve a significant decrease in a margin of safety.
    The modifications and methodology associated with the 
elimination of containment accident pressure credit do not change 
the design functions within the applicable limits. The credit is 
associated with accident or event response and does not 
significantly affect accident initiators by maintaining their 
current functions and does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. The proposed Technical Specifications 
associated with these modifications ensure that BFN is operated 
within the bounds of the inputs and assumptions used in the accident 
analyses.
    The steam dryer is being replaced in order to ensure adequate 
margin to the established structural requirements is maintained. The 
new RSD does not have any new design functions and an analysis was 
performed to confirm it will be capable of maintaining its 
structural integrity. The power ascension test plan will verify that 
the RSD conservatively meets the vibration and stress requirements.
    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.

[[Page 43668]]

    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

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

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The 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 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

[[Page 43669]]

processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of June 2016.

    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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-14999 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P