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, 50742-50750 [2016-17477]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50742-50750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17477]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0143]


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; notice of opportunity to comment, 
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing 
procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of four

[[Page 50743]]

amendment requests. The amendment requests are for the Shearon Harris 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 
No. 2; Palisades Nuclear Plant; and Hope Creek Generating Station. For 
each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve 
no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request 
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an 
order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention 
preparation.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 1, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 3, 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 August 12, 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-2016-0143. 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 the Docket ID NRC-2016-0143, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number (e.g., 50-XXX), application date, and 
subject 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-2016-0143.
     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 below.
     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 the Docket ID NRC-2016-0143, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number (e.g., 50-XXX), 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

[[Page 50744]]

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 to support its position on the issue. 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 
October 3, 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. Details regarding the opportunity to 
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if 
such sessions are scheduled.

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, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-
Filing process requires

[[Page 50745]]

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 Electronic Filing 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 Electronic 
Filing 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 Electronic Filing 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 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
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 hearing request and petition 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.

[[Page 50746]]

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 19, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15236A044 and ML16125A420, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment, as supplemented, requests plant-specific review and approval 
of the following reactor core design methodology reports: (1) DPC-NE-
1008-P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/
SIMULATE-3 for Westinghouse Reactors;'' (2) DPC-NF-2010, Revision 3, 
``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design;'' and (3) DPC-NE-2011-
P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating 
Limits of Westinghouse Reactors.'' The proposed amendment would also 
revise the Harris Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.1.9.6, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report,'' and the Robinson TS Section 5.6.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to include the reports. The 
supplement, dated May 4, 2016, added the latter two design methodology 
reports.
    The license amendment request, dated August 19, 2015, was 
previously noticed in the Federal Register (81 FR 5492; February 2, 
2016). This notice supersedes the August 19, 2015, notice in its 
entirety to include the expanded scope of both the amendment request 
and the no significant hazards consideration determination.
    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 requests review and approval of DPC-NE-1008-
P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 
(HBRSEP). The CASMO-5 and SIMULATE-3 codes are not used in the 
operation of any plant equipment. The benchmark calculations 
performed confirm the accuracy of the codes and develop a 
methodology for calculating power distribution uncertainties for use 
in reload design calculations. The use of power distribution 
uncertainties in conjunction with predicted peaking factors ensures 
that thermal accident acceptance criteria are satisfied. The 
proposed use of this methodology does not affect the performance of 
any equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed 
accident. There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed 
in accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are 
violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors that 
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
    The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,'' 
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report 
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied 
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The proposed change supports the use 
of revised McGuire and Catawba reload design methodologies for 
performance of reload design analyses at Harris and Robinson Nuclear 
Plants. Implementation of the methodologies will occur following 
approval by the NRC. The proposed amendments will have no impact 
upon the probability of occurrence of any design basis accident, nor 
will they affect the performance of any plant equipment used to 
mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There will be no 
significant impact on the source term or pathways assumed in 
accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be 
violated and there will be no adverse effects on the factors that 
contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
    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 proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-1008-
P, Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 
(HBRSEP). It does not change any system functions or maintenance 
activities. The change does not involve physical alteration of the 
plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed. The software is not installed in any plant equipment, and 
therefore the software is incapable of initiating an equipment 
malfunction that would result in a new or different type of accident 
from any previously evaluated. The change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analyses but ensures that the core will operate 
within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing, and no new 
accident precursors are generated.
    The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,'' 
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report 
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied 
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The proposed amendments do not change 
the methods used for normal plant operation, nor are the methods 
used to respond to plant transients modified. Use of the DPC-NF-2010 
and DPC-NE-2011-P methodologies does not result in a new or 
different type of accident from any previously evaluated. There are 
no changes to any system functions or maintenance activities. The 
change does not physically alter the plant, that is, no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed. This change does not 
create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable 
during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-1008-P, 
Revision 0, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 
for Westinghouse Reactors,'' to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 
(HBRSEP). As with the existing methodology, the qualification of the 
methods therein and the use of power distribution uncertainties 
ensure the acceptability of analytical limits under normal, 
transient, and accident conditions. The use of the proposed 
methodology revision once it has been approved by the NRC will 
ensure that all applicable design and safety limits are satisfied 
such that the fission product barriers will continue to perform 
their design functions.
    The proposed change also requests review and approval of DPC NF-
2010, Revision 3, ``Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design,'' 
and DPC-NE-2011-P, Revision 2, ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report 
for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors'' to be applied 
to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). Application of the DPC NF-2010 and 
DPC-NE-2011-P methodologies will assure the acceptability of thermal 
limits assumed in the cycle reload safety analyses. As with the 
existing methodology, the Duke Energy methodology will continue to 
ensure (a) the acceptability of analytical limits under normal, 
transient, and accident conditions, and (b) that all applicable 
design and safety

[[Page 50747]]

limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers will 
continue to perform their design functions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated June 7, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16075A103 and ML16159A230, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the PNP Technical Specification (TS) Section 
5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and Section 5.6.8, ``Steam 
Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' Specifically, the licensee 
requested to implement an alternate repair criteria (ARC) that invokes 
a C--Star inspection length (C*), on a permanent basis for the cold-leg 
side of the SGs' tubesheet and to clarify the intent and improve 
interpretation of the PNP TSs regarding the previously incorporated ARC 
for the hot-leg side of the SGs' tubesheet which was approved by 
Amendment No. 225 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071420216).
    The license amendment request was noticed in the Federal Register 
on June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36604). The notice is being reissued in its 
entirety to include a revised description of the amendment request and 
associated changes to the no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    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.
    Previously evaluated accidents are initiated by the failure of 
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change alters 
the SG cold-leg repair criteria by limiting tube inspection length 
in the cold-leg tubesheet, to the safety significant section, C* 
length, and, as such, does not have a detrimental impact on the 
integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that 
initiates an analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change has no 
significant effect upon previously evaluated accident probabilities 
or consequences.
    The proposed amendment to revise the PNP SG tube repair criteria 
in TS 5.5.8c, does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Alternate repair 
criteria are being proposed for the cold-leg side of the SGs that is 
consistent with the current alternate repair criteria for the hot-
leg side of the SGs, in TS 5.5.8c.1. The proposed SG tube inspection 
length maintains the existing design limits of the SGs and therefore 
does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident 
involving a tube rupture or primary to secondary accident-induced 
leakage, as previously evaluated in the PNP Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Also, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
Steam Generator Program Guidelines (NEI 97-06) [(ADAMS Accession No. 
ML111310708)] performance criteria for structural integrity and 
accident-induced leakage, which are incorporated in PNP TS 5.5.8, 
would continue to be satisfied.
    Implementing an alternate repair criteria would allow SG tubes 
with flaws below the C* length to remain in service. The potential 
consequences to leaving these flawed tubes inservice are tube burst, 
tube pullout, and accident induced tube leakage. Tube burst is 
prevented for a tube with defects within the tubesheet region 
because of the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Tube pullout 
could result from the axial forces induced by primary to secondary 
differential pressures that occur during the bounding event of the 
main steam line break. A joint industry test program report, WCAP-
16208-P, NDE Inspection Length for CE Steam Generator Tubesheet 
Region Explosive Expansions, Revision 1, May 2005 [(Non-proprietary 
version at ADAMS Accession No. ML051520417)], has defined the non-
degraded tube to tubesheet joint length (C*) required to preclude 
tube pullout and maintain acceptable primary to secondary accident-
induced leakage, conservatively assuming a 360 degree 
circumferential through wall crack exists immediately below this C* 
length.
    The PNP UFSAR Sections 14.14, Steam Line Rupture Incident, 
14.15, Steam Generator Tube Rupture with a Loss of Offsite Power, 
and 14.16, Control Rod Ejection, primary coolant system leakage 
limit is 0.3 gallon per minute (gpm) (432 gallons per day) in the 
unaffected SG. For the tube rupture accident, this 0.3 gpm leakage 
is in addition to the break flow rate associated with the rupture of 
a single SG tube. The WCAP-16208-P report used a primary to 
secondary accident-induced leakage criteria value of 0.1 gpm to 
derive the C* length. Use of 0.1 gpm ensures that the PNP TS 
limiting accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm is met.
    For PNP, the derived C* length for the cold-leg side of the SGs 
is 13.67 inches. Any degradation below the C* length is shown by 
test results and analysis to meet the NEI 97-06 performance 
criteria, thereby precluding an increased probability of a tube 
rupture event, or an increase in the consequences of a steam line 
rupture incident or control rod ejection accident.
    Therefore, the C* lengths for the SG cold-legs provide assurance 
that the NEI 97-06 requirements for tube burst and leakage are met 
and that the conservatively derived maximum combined leakage from 
both tubesheet joints (hot and cold-legs) is less than 0.2 gpm at 
accident conditions. This combined leakage criterion of 0.2 gpm in 
the faulted loop retains margin against the PNP TS allowable 
accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm per SG.
    In summary, the proposed changes to the PNP TS maintain existing 
design limits, meet the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.121, and the proposed [amendment] does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment provides for an alternate repair criteria 
that excludes the lower portion of the steam generator cold-leg 
tubes from inspection below a C* length by implementing an alternate 
repair criteria. It does not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. It does not impact any other plant system or 
component. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety 
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the 
accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce any new equipment, 
change existing equipment, create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment, nor introduce any new malfunctions resulting from tube 
degradation. SG tube integrity is shown to be maintained for all 
plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed alternate 
repair criteria for the SG cold-leg tubesheet region.
    The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated 
because SG tube leakage limits and structural integrity would 
continue to be maintained during all plant conditions upon 
implementation of the proposed alternate repair criteria to the PNP 
TSs. The alternate repair criteria does not introduce any new 
mechanisms that might result in a different kind of accident from 
those previously evaluated. Even with the limiting

[[Page 50748]]

circumstances of a complete circumferential separation (360 degree 
through wall crack) of a tube below the C* length, tube pullout is 
precluded and leakage is predicted to be maintained with the TS and 
accident analysis limits during all plant conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 provides an alternate repair criteria for 
the SG cold-leg that invokes a C* inspection length criteria. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety since design SG primary to secondary leakage limits 
have been analyzed to continue to be met. This will ensure that the 
SG cold-legs tubes continue to function as a primary coolant system 
boundary by maintaining their integrity. Tube integrity includes 
both structural and leakage integrity. The proposed cold-leg 
tubesheet inspection C* depth, of 13.67 inches below the bottom of 
the cold-leg expansion transition or top of the cold-leg tubesheet, 
whichever is lower, would ensure tube integrity is maintained during 
normal and accident conditions because any degradation below C* is 
shown by test results and analyses to be acceptable.
    Operation with potential tube degradation below the proposed C* 
cold-leg inspection length within the tubesheet region of the SG 
tubing meets the recommendation of NEI 97-06 SG program guidelines. 
Additionally, the proposed changes also maintain the structural and 
accident-induced leakage integrity as required by NEI 97-06.
    The total leakage from an undetected flaw population below the 
C* inspection length for the cold-leg tubesheet under postulated 
accident conditions is accounted for, in order to assure it is 
within the bounds of the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: Jeanne Cho, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station 
(HCGS), Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: June 8, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16181A193 and ML16181A194.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to 
incorporate a revised Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio 
(SLMCPR) for single recirculation loop (SLO) due to the cycle-specific 
analysis for the HCGS Cycle 21.
    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 required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section 
2.1, Safety Limits, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the 
core do not experience transition boiling during normal operation 
and analyzed transients, preserving fuel cladding integrity. The 
proposed change to the SLMCPR value for SLO ensures this criterion 
continues to be met, and therefore does not increase the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, no 
plant hardware or operational changes are required with this 
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 accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section 
2.1, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not 
experience transition boiling during normal operation and analyzed 
transients. The proposed change to the SLMCPR value for SLO does not 
involve any plant hardware or operational changes and does not 
create any new precursors to an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The required SLMCPRs for HCGS Cycle 21 are calculated using NRC-
approved methodology. The SLMCPR values, contained in TS Section 
2.1, ensure at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not 
experience transition boiling during normal operation and analyzed 
transients, preserving fuel cladding integrity. The revised SLMCPR 
value for SLO ensures this criterion continues to be met. In 
addition, the proposed change to the SLMCPR for SLO does not 
adversely affect the design basis function or performance of a 
structure, system, or component as described in the HCGS UFSAR 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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, New Jersey 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

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

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    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

[[Page 50749]]

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 provided access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is provided 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) an 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, as amended at 77 
FR 46562, August 3, 2012) 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 proposed 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 18th day of July, 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).

[[Page 50750]]

 
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. 2016-17477 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P