Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information, 78661-78670 [2016-26096]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78661-78670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26096]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0218]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Diablo Canyon 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant, Units 3 and 4; and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 
3. 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) and/or safeguards information (SGI), an order imposes 
procedures to obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention 
preparation.

DATES: Comments must be filed by December 8, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 9, 2017. 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 and/or SGI is necessary to respond 
to this notice must request document access by November 18, 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-2016-0218. 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: C. Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0218, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, 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-2016-0218.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     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-2016-0218, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, 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 and/or 
SGI.

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 Sec.  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

[[Page 78662]]

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 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) 
with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR 
part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition 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 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
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 petitioner's interest. The petition 
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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 
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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 proceeding. The contention must be one 
which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 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 request 
permission to cross-examine witnesses, consistent with the NRC's 
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) through (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 January 9, 2017. 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 
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

[[Page 78663]]

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 (hereinafter 
``petition''), 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 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 (1) request 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 petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. 
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional 
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 9 a.m. 
and 7 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, 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 petition 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.
    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a 
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for 
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A 
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and 
served on the parties to the hearing.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the applications for amendment which are available 
for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this

[[Page 78664]]

document, see the ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' 
section of this document.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No.: 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: May 24, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16152A045.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and 
safeguards information (SGI). The amendment would replace the Crystal 
River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant (CR-3) Physical Security Plan, Training and 
Qualification Plan, and Safeguards Contingency Plan with a new combined 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Only Physical 
Security Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, and Safeguards 
Contingency Plan (altogether referred to as the PLAN). The PLAN will be 
used at CR-3 after all spent fuel has been transferred to the CR-3 
ISFSI.
    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?
    No.
    The proposed PLAN and deletion of the cyber security plan will 
become effective after all the spent nuclear fuel has been removed 
from the Spent Fuel Pools (SFP) and there are no requirements to 
return spent fuel to the SFP. The only current design basis accident 
is the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), once the fuel is removed from 
the pool and placed on the ISFSI pad, the FHA will no longer be 
credible.
    The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems, 
structures, and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of 
any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment 
would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant 
SSC. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve significant physical 
alteration of the plant. Minor modifications are associated with 
this proposed amendment (e.g., wiring changes in security equipment, 
the addition of telecommunications equipment, and software changes 
to the security computer system). The proposed license amendment 
would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of 
any postulated accident. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a 
new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the 
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure 
mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. 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?
    No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR. Because the 
10 CFR part 50 license for CR-3 no longer authorizes operation of 
the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor 
vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of 
postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer 
credible. The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the 
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The modifications 
associated with this proposed amendment does not affect plant safety 
or design margins. 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: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, 
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis 
Obispo County, California

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 31, October 22, November 2, November 6, and 
December 17, 2015; and February 1, February 10, April 21, June 9, and 
September 15, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15176A539, ML15243A363, ML15295A470, ML15321A235, 
ML15310A522, ML16004A363, ML16032A603, ML16041A533, ML16120A026, 
ML16169A267, and ML16259A117, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) and Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt the alternative 
source term (AST) as allowed by 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident source term.'' 
The AST methodology, as established in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, 
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML003716792), is used to calculate the offsite and control room 
radiological consequences of postulated accidents for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2. The amendments would revise TS 1.1, ``Definitions,'' to change 
the definition of Dose Equivalent I-131; TS 3.4.16, ``RCS [Reactor 
Coolant System] Specific Activity,'' to revise the noble gas activity 
limit; TS 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' to require the 48-
inch containment purge supply and exhaust valves to be sealed closed 
during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4; TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (VFTP),'' to change the allowable methyl iodide penetration 
testing criteria for the auxiliary building system charcoal filter; and 
TS 5.5.19, ``Control Room Habitability Program,'' to replace ``whole 
body or its equivalent to any part of the body,'' with ``Total 
Effective Dose equivalent (TEDE),'' which is the dose criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 50.67. The amendments would also add license 
conditions to Appendix D, ``Additional Conditions,'' of Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61486). The notice is being 
reissued in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of 
the amendment request, and proposed 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.
    This license amendment does not physically impact any system, 
structure, or component (SSC) that is a potential initiator of an 
accident. Therefore, implementation of AST, the AST assumptions and 
inputs, the proposed TS changes, and new[chi]/Q [atmospheric 
dispersion factors] values have no impact on the probability for 
initiation of any design basis accident. Once the occurrence of an 
accident has been postulated, the new accident source term and 
[chi]/Q values are inputs to analyses that

[[Page 78665]]

evaluate the radiological consequences of the postulated events.
    Reactor coolant specific activity, testing criteria of charcoal 
filters, and the accident induced primary-to-secondary system 
leakage performance criterion are not initiators for any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed change to require the 48-inch 
containment purge valves to be sealed closed during operating MODES 
1, 2, 3, and 4 is not an accident initiator for any accident 
previously evaluated. The change in the classification of a portion 
of the 40-inch Containment Penetration Area Ventilation line is also 
not an accident initiator for any accident previously evaluated. 
Thus, the proposed TS changes and AST implementation will not 
increase the probability of an accident.
    The change to the decay time prior to fuel movement is not an 
accident initiator. Decay time is used to determine the source term 
for the dose consequence calculation following a potential FHA [fuel 
handling accident] and has no effect on the probability of the 
accident. Likewise, the change to the Control Room radiation 
monitors setpoint cannot cause an accident and the operation of 
containment spray during the recirculation phase is used for 
mitigation of a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident], and thus not an 
accident initiator.
    As a result, there are no proposed changes to the parameters or 
conditions that could contribute to the initiation of an accident 
previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the AST cannot affect the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    Regarding accident consequences, equipment and components 
affected by the proposed changes are mitigative in nature and relied 
upon once the accident has been postulated. The license amendment 
implements a new calculation methodology for determining accident 
consequences and does not adversely affect any plant component or 
system that is credited to mitigate fuel damage. Subsequently, no 
conditions have been created that could significantly increase the 
consequences of any accidents previously evaluated.
    Requiring that the 48-inch containment purge supply and exhaust 
valves be sealed closed during operating MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4 
eliminates a potential path for radiological release following 
events that result in radioactive material releases to the 
containment, thus reducing potential consequences of the event. The 
auxiliary building ventilation system allowable methyl iodide 
penetration limit is being changed, which results in more stringent 
testing requirements, and thus higher filter efficiencies for 
reducing potential releases.
    Changes to the operation of the containment spray system to 
require operation during the recirculation mode are also mitigative 
in nature. While the plant design basis has always included the 
ability to implement containment spray during recirculation, this 
license amendment now requires operation of containment spray in the 
recirculation mode for dose mitigation. DCPP [Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are] 
designed and licensed to operate using containment spray in the 
recirculation mode. As such, operation of containment spray in the 
recirculation mode has already been analyzed, evaluated, and is 
currently controlled by Emergency Operating Procedures. Usage of 
recirculation spray reduces the consequence of the postulated event. 
Likewise, the additional shielding to the Control Room and the 
addition of a HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filter to the 
TSC [Technical Support Center] ventilation system reduces the 
consequences of the postulated event to the Control Room and TSC 
personnel. Lowering the limit for DEX [Dose Equivalent XE-133] 
lowers potential releases. By reclassifying a portion of the 40-inch 
Containment Penetration Area Ventilation line to PG&E Design Class 
I, this line will be seismically qualified, thus assuring that post-
LOCA release points are the same as those used for determining 
[chi]/Q values.
    The change to the decay time from 100 hours to 72 hours prior to 
fuel movement is an input to the FHA. Although less decay will 
result in higher released activity, the results of the FHA dose 
consequence analysis remain within the dose acceptance criteria of 
the event. Also, the radiation levels to an operator from a raised 
fuel assembly may increase due to a lower decay time, however, any 
exposure will continue to be maintained under 10 CFR 20 limits by 
the plant Radiation Protection Program.
    Plant-specific radiological analyses have been performed using 
the AST methodology, assumption and inputs, as well as new [chi]/Q 
values. The results of the dose consequences analyses demonstrate 
that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed 
event. Implementing the AST involves no facility equipment, 
procedure, or process changes that could significantly affect the 
radioactive material actually released during an event. 
Subsequently, no conditions have been created that could 
significantly increase the consequences of any of the events being 
evaluated.
    Based on the above discussion, 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment does not alter or place any SSC in a 
configuration outside its design or analysis limits and does not 
create any new accident scenarios.
    The AST methodology is not an accident initiator, as it is a 
method used to estimate resulting postulated design basis accident 
doses. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration that 
supports implementation of the new methodology and supports 
reduction in dose consequences. DCPP is designed and licensed to 
operate using containment spray in the recirculation mode. This 
change will not affect any operational aspect of the system or any 
other system, thus no new modes of operation are introduced by the 
proposed change.
    The function of the radiation monitors has not changed; only the 
setpoint has changed as a result of an assessment of all potential 
release pathways. The continued operation of containment spray and 
the radiation monitor setpoint change do not create any new failure 
modes, alter the nature of events postulated in the UFSAR, nor 
introduce any unique precursor mechanism.
    Requiring the 48-inch containment purge valves to be sealed 
closed during operating MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4 does not introduce any 
new accident precursor. This change only eliminates a potential 
release path for radionuclides following a LOCA.
    The proposed TS testing criteria for the auxiliary building 
ventilation system charcoal filters cannot create an accident, but 
results in requiring more efficient filtration of potentially 
released iodine. The proposed changes to the DEX activity limit, the 
TS terminology, and the decay time of the fuel before movement are 
also unrelated to accident initiators.
    The only physical changes to the plant being made in support of 
AST is the addition of Control Room shielding in an area previously 
modified, the addition of a HEPA filter at the intake of the TSC 
normal ventilation system, and the upgrade to the damper actuators, 
pressure switches, and damper solenoid valves to support 
reclassifying a portion of the Containment Penetration Area 
Ventilation line to PG&E Design Class I. Both Control Room shielding 
and HEPA filtration are mitigative in nature and do not have any 
impact on plant operation or system response following an accident. 
The Control Room modification for adding the shielding will meet 
applicable loading limits, so the addition of the shielding cannot 
initiate a failure. Upgrading damper actuators, pressure switches, 
and damper solenoid valves involve replacing existing components 
with components that are PG&E Design Class I. Therefore, the 
addition of shielding, a HEPA filter, and upgrading components 
cannot create a new or different kind of accident.
    Since the function of the SSCs has not changed for AST 
implementation, no new failure modes are created by this proposed 
change. The AST change itself does not have the capability to 
initiate accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Implementing the AST is relevant only to calculated dose 
consequences of potential design basis accidents evaluated in 
Chapter 15 of the UFSAR. The changes proposed in this license 
amendment involve the use of a new analysis methodology and related 
regulatory acceptance criteria. New atmospheric dispersion factors, 
which are based on site specific meteorological data, were 
calculated in accordance with regulatory guidelines. The proposed 
TS, TS Bases, and UFSAR changes reflect the plant configuration that 
will support implementation of the new methodology and result in 
operation in accordance with regulatory guidelines that support the 
revisions to the radiological analyses of the

[[Page 78666]]

limiting design basis accidents. Conservative methodologies, per the 
guidance of RG 1.183, have been used in performing the accident 
analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents are all 
within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with the use of 
AST methodology.
    The change to the minimum decay time prior to fuel movement 
results in higher fission product releases after a FHA. However, the 
results of the FHA dose consequence analysis remain within the dose 
acceptance criteria of the event.
    The proposed changes continue to ensure that the dose 
consequences of design basis accidents at the exclusion area, low 
population zone boundaries, in the TSC, and in the Control Room are 
within the corresponding acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183 
and 10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological 
consequences of these accidents is provided by meeting the 
applicable regulatory limits, which are set at or below the 10 CFR 
50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of safety is inherent in these 
limits.
    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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16242A399.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment request proposes changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2* information. Specifically, the 
proposed change clarifies in the UFSAR how the quality and strength of 
a specific set of couplers welded to stainless steel embedment plates 
already installed and embedded in concrete are demonstrated through 
visual examination and static tension testing, in lieu of the 
nondestructive examination requirements of American Institute of Steel 
Construction (AISC) N690, ``Specification for Safety-Related Steel 
Structures for Nuclear Facilities.''
    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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetration (PJP) welds 
joining weldable couplers to stainless steel embedment plates as 
being able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying 
the AISC N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and 
Section Q1.26.3 requirements for non-destructive examination (NDE) 
on 10 percent weld populations, reexamination, and repair, 
respectively. The proposed change does not affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events.
    The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the 
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are 
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
    The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of 
mechanical and fluid systems. The change does not impact the 
support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures. 
There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to 
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted 
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident 
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or 
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed 
change create any new accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds joining weldable couplers to 
stainless steel embedment plates as being able to perform their 
design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section 
Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and Section Q1.26.3 requirements for 
non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations, 
reexamination, and repair, respectively. The proposed change does 
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may 
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such 
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is 
created.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect the design 
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the 
couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of 
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, 
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or 
non-safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new 
fission product release path, result in a new fission product 
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result 
in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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 describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of the PJP welds joining weldable couplers 
to stainless steel embedment plates as being able to perform their 
design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC N690-1994, Section 
Q1.26.2.2, Section Q1.26.2.3, and Section Q1.26.3 requirements for 
non-destructive examination on 10 percent weld populations, 
reexamination, and repair, respectively. The proposed change 
satisfies the same design functions as stated in the UFSAR. This 
change does not adversely affect compliance with any design 
function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.
    Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant 
margin of safety is reduced.
    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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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: July 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in

[[Page 78667]]

ADAMS under Accession No. ML16197A372.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation 
schedule for Milestone 8 and the associated license condition in the 
Facility Operating Licenses.
    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 revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation 
date. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add 
any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change is an extension to the completion 
date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on 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 revises the CSP Implementation Schedule. 
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation 
Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. This change also does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident 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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change 
extends the CSP Implementation Schedule. Because there is no change 
to these established safety margins as result of this change, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

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 sensitive 
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)). 
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI 
regulations.
    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 or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice 
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. 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 or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI, SGI, or both 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 and/or SGI 
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);
    (3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or 
entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the 
need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this 
adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why 
publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be 
sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention; and
    (4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who 
would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the 
identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the 
requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain 
the following information:
    (a) A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know'' 
the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent 
with the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the 
statement must explain:

[[Page 78668]]

    (i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is 
necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a 
specific contention in this proceeding; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to 
meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff redaction of 
information from requested documents before their release may be 
appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do 
not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a 
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory 
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the 
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its 
counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or 
assistant who satisfies these criteria.
    (b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive 
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The 
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to 
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 
10 CFR part 2, subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the 
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form 
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic 
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure 
Web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel 
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should 
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requestor will be asked to provide his or her full name, 
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, 
and email address. After providing this information, the requestor 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original 
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form 
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by 
calling 1-630-829-9565, or by email to Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The 
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI 
must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history 
records check.
    (d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $333.00 \4\ to 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the 
request for access has been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of 
Personnel Managements adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI 
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals 
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background 
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a 
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and 
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption 
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, 
Personnel Security Branch, will make final determination whether the 
claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the 
Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status 
prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the 
background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; 
however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need 
to know, are still applicable.

    Note:  Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 
C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following 
address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Personnel 
Security Branch, Mail Stop TWFN-03-B46M, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.

    These documents and materials should not be included with the 
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter 
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.
    D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the 
requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and 
accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The 
NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
    E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, 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 or need to know the SGI requested.
    F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines 
that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(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 setting forth 
terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent 
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to 
SUNSI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that 
the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of 
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the 
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and 
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the 
Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals 
are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the 
requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of 
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will 
be provided. Those conditions may include, but not be limited to, the 
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 
\6\ by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the 
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to 
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, 
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location 
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI 
protection requirements.
    I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days 
after the requestor is granted access to that

[[Page 78669]]

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 or SGI 
contentions by that later deadline.
    J. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC 
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or 
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse 
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and 
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed 
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness 
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided 
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an 
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
    (3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination with respect to access to SUNSI by filing a challenge 
within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding 
officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has 
been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 
unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law 
Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another 
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with 
that officer.
    (4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of 
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by 
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv). 
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.311.
    K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI 
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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI or SGI, 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. The attachment 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 25th of October, 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
              and 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) and/or Safeguards
                            Information (SGI) 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;
                            demonstrating that access should be granted
                            (e.g., showing technical competence for
                            access to SGI); and, for SGI, including
                            application fee for fingerprint/background
                            check.
60.......................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                            intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
                            of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
                            formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                            and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for
                            intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner
                            reply).
20.......................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
                            staff informs the requestor of the staff's
                            determination whether the request for access
                            provides a reasonable basis to believe
                            standing can be established and shows (1)
                            need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI.
                            (For SUNSI, NRC staff also informs any party
                            to the proceeding whose interest independent
                            of the proceeding would be harmed by the
                            release of the information.) If NRC staff
                            makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
                            likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
                            document processing (preparation of
                            redactions or review of redacted documents).
                            If NRC staff makes the finding of need to
                            know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC
                            staff begins background check (including
                            fingerprinting for a criminal history
                            records check), information processing
                            (preparation of redactions or review of
                            redacted documents), and readiness
                            inspections.
25.......................  If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' no ``need to
                            know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
                            deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a
                            motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                            staff's denial of access; NRC staff files
                            copy of access determination with the
                            presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
                            Judge or other designated officer, as
                            appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need''
                            for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
                            proceeding whose interest independent of the
                            proceeding would be harmed by the release of
                            the information to file a motion seeking a
                            ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                            access.
30.......................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                            reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.......................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                            need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                            complete information processing and file
                            motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                            Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                            licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
                            for SUNSI.

[[Page 78670]]

 
190......................  (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing,
                            need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness
                            and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to
                            file motion for Protective Order and draft
                            Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
                            determination that the proposed recipient of
                            SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note:
                            Before the Office of Administration makes an
                            adverse determination regarding access to
                            SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided
                            an opportunity to correct or explain
                            information.
205......................  Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a
                            final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or
                            reliability determination either before the
                            presiding officer or another designated
                            officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
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 and/or
                            SGI consistent with decision issuing the
                            protective order.
A + 28...................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                            development depends upon access to SUNSI and/
                            or SGI. 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 or SGI contentions by that
                            later deadline.
A + 53...................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                            contentions whose development depends upon
                            access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60...................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                            reply to answers.
>A + 60..................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-26096 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P