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, 728-738 [2019-26931]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 728-738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26931]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0241]


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; 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 five amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Fermi 2; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Center for 
Neutron Research Test Reactors; Joseph M.

[[Page 729]]

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. 
For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it 
involves no significant hazards consideration. Because the amendment 
request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 
(SUNSI) and safeguards information (SGI) an order imposes procedures to 
obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention preparation.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 6, 2020. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by March 9, 2020. 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 January 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0241. Address 
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0241, 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 Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0241.
     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 ``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 [email protected]. 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-2019-0241, 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 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 amendments until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 
60-day period provided that its final determination is that the 
amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, 
the Commission may issue the amendments 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.

[[Page 730]]

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 petition for leave 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. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right 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.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in 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 must 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 the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must 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 the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) 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. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    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 establish 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 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 the 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 no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 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. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
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 
his or her 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 and petition for leave to intervene (petition), 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 that request to 
participate 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. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 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

[[Page 731]]

[email protected], 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 submissions and 
access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is 
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will 
be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (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 website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is 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 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 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 adjudicatory documents 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://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``cancel'' when the 
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to 
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access 
any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. 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.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19248C679.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
SUNSI. The amendment would eliminate the license renewal license 
condition based upon a proposed alternative to install neutron 
absorbing inserts (i.e., NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts) in the 
spent fuel pool (SFP) storage racks containing Boraflex. The amendment 
also requests revision of technical specification (TS) requirements 
associated with the SFP storage racks based on a new criticality safety 
analysis. In addition, approval of the new criticality safety analysis, 
including methodology, is being requested.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Renewed Facility Operating 
License and TSs to reflect installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] 
rack inserts in SFP storage rack cells. The changes are necessary to 
ensure that, without credit for Boraflex as a neutron absorbing 
material as required by the License Renewal License Condition, the 
effective neutron multiplication factor, k-effective, is less than 
or equal to 0.95, if the spent fuel pool (SFP) is fully flooded with 
unborated water. Since the proposed changes pertain only to the SFP, 
only those accidents that are related to movement and storage of 
fuel assemblies in the SFP could potentially be affected by the 
proposed changes.
    The installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their 
credit in the criticality safety analysis does not result in a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
analyzed because there are no changes in the manner in which spent 
fuel is handled, moved, or stored in the rack cells. The probability 
that a fuel assembly would be dropped is unchanged by the 
installation of the NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their 
credit in the criticality safety analysis. These events involve 
failures of administrative controls, human performance, and 
equipment failures that are unaffected by the type of neutron 
absorbing material utilized in the SFP racks.
    The installation of NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and their 
credit in the criticality

[[Page 732]]

safety analysis does not result in a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed because there is no 
change to the fuel assemblies that provide the source term used in 
calculating the radiological consequences of a fuel handling 
accident. In addition, consistent with the current design, only one 
fuel assembly will be moved at a time. Thus, the consequences of 
dropping an insert with tooling or a fuel assembly onto any other 
fuel assembly or other structure remain bounded by the previously 
analyzed fuel handling accident. The proposed changes do not impact 
the effectiveness of the other engineered design features, such as 
isolation systems, that limit the dose consequences of a fuel 
handling accident.
    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.
    Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the Fermi 2 SFP is a 
normal activity for which Fermi 2 has been designed and licensed. As 
part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without 
endangering the public health and safety, the ability to safely 
accommodate different possible accidents in the SFP have been 
previously analyzed. These analyses address accidents such as 
radiological releases due to dropping a fuel assembly; potential 
inadvertent criticality due to misloading a fuel assembly. The 
proposed SFP storage configuration utilizing the NETCO SNAP-
IN[supreg] rack inserts does not change the method of fuel movement 
or spent fuel storage and does not create the potential for a new 
accident. The proposed changes also allow for the continued use of 
SFP storage rack cells with Boraflex within those SFP storage rack 
cells; however, no credit is taken for Boraflex as a neutron 
absorbing material.
    The rack inserts are passive devices. These devices, when inside 
a SFP storage rack cell, perform the same function as the previously 
licensed Boraflex neutron absorber panels in that cell. The NETCO 
SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts do not add any limiting structural 
loads or adversely affect the removal of decay heat from the 
assemblies. No change in total heat load in the spent fuel pool is 
being made. The insert devices will be monitored to ensure they 
maintain their design function over the life of the spent fuel pool. 
The existing fuel handling accident, which assumes the drop of a 
fuel assembly and refueling mast, bounds the drop of a rack insert 
and associated tools. This proposed change does not create the 
possibility of misloading an assembly into a SFP storage rack cell. 
Inadvertent removal of an insert, although largely precluded by 
design and administrative controls, does not challenge 
subcriticality requirements as explicitly demonstrated by the 
criticality safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts are being installed to 
maintain the margin of safety in the SFP criticality safety 
analysis. The NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts, once approved and 
installed, will replace the existing Boraflex as the credited 
neutron absorber for controlling spent fuel pool reactivity, even 
though the Boraflex material will remain in place.
    Fermi 2 TS 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' Specification 4.3.1.b requires 
the SFP storage racks to maintain the effective neutron 
multiplication factor, k-effective, less than or equal to 0.95 when 
fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for 
uncertainties. Therefore, for SFP criticality safety considerations, 
the required safety margin is 5 percent.
    The proposed changes ensure, as verified by the new criticality 
safety analysis, that k-effective continues to be less than or equal 
to 0.95, thus preserving the required safety margin of 5 percent.
    In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel 
assembly, considering the installed NETCO SNAP-IN[supreg] rack 
inserts, remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to a 
fuel handling accident is unaffected by the addition of the inserts 
in the SFP storage cells. The proposed changes also do not increase 
the capacity of the SFP.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above evaluation, DTE Electric Company concludes 
that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards 
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' 
is justified.

    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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 28, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19240A925.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
SUNSI. The amendment would revise the current licensing basis for ONS, 
Units 1, 2, and 3, regarding high energy line breaks (HELBs) outside of 
the containment building. The license amendment request (LAR) also 
includes revisions to the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) 
in support of the revised HELB licensing basis. The proposed change 
will establish normal plant systems, protected service water (PSW), 
and/or the standby shutdown facility (SSF) as the assured mitigation 
path following a HELB.
    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.
    A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB 
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the 
design of structures, systems, or components and is not a design 
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is 
approximately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded 
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a 
HELB will occur or increase the consequences from a HELB. This LAR 
provides an overview of the HELB reanalysis, description of station 
modifications that will be made because of the HELB reanalysis, and 
the proposed mitigation strategies which now includes normal plant 
equipment, the protected service water (PSW) system, and the standby 
shutdown facility (SSF). The PSW and SSF systems are designed as 
standby systems for use under emergency conditions. With the 
exception of testing, the systems are not normally pressurized. The 
duration of the test configuration is short as compared to the total 
plant (unit) operating time. Due to the combination of the 
infrequent testing and short duration of the test, pipe ruptures are 
not postulated or evaluated for these systems.
    Other systems have also been excluded based on the infrequency 
of those systems operating at high energy conditions. Considerations 
of HELBs is excluded (both breaks and cracks) if a high energy 
system operates less than 1% of the total unit operating time such 
as emergency feedwater or reactor building spray or if the operating 
time of a system at high energy conditions is less than 
approximately 2% of total system operating time such as low-pressure 
injection. This is acceptable based on the very low probability of a 
HELB occurring during the limited operating time of these systems at 
high energy conditions. Gas and oil systems have been evaluated, 
since these systems also possess limited energy.
    The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will 
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality 
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 
accident initiators not already considered in the design and 
licensing basis are introduced.

[[Page 733]]

For Turbine Building HELBs that could adversely affect equipment 
needed to stabilize and cooldown the units, the PSW system or SSF 
provides assurance that safe shutdown can be established and 
maintained. For Auxiliary Building HELBs, normal plant systems or 
the SSF provides assurance that safe shutdown can be established and 
maintained.
    As noted in Section 3.4 [of the LAR], Oconee Nuclear Station 
plans to adopt the provisions of Branch Technical Position (BTP) 
Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) 3-1, [``NRC Generic Letter 87-
11, Relaxation in Arbitrary Intermediated Pipe Rupture 
Requirements,''] regarding the elimination of arbitrary intermediate 
breaks for analyzed lines that include seismic loading. Guidance in 
the BTP MEB 3-1 is used to define crack locations in analyzed lines 
that include seismic loading. Adoption of this provision allows 
Oconee Nuclear Station to focus attention to those high stress areas 
that have a higher potential for catastrophic pipe failure. In 
absence of additional guidance, Duke Energy uses NUREG/CR-2913 to 
define the zone of influence for breaks and critical cracks that 
meet the range of operating parameters listed in NUREG/CR-2913. 
NUREG/CR-2913 provides an analytical model for predicting two-phase, 
water jet loadings on axisymmetric targets that did not exist prior 
in the Giambusso/Schwencer requirements.
    In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that 
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will 
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and 
risk margin; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequence 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.
    A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB 
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the 
design of structures, systems or components and is not a design 
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is 
approximately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded 
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a 
HELB will create a new or different kind of accident. This LAR 
provides an overview of the HELB analysis, descriptions of station 
modifications that will be made because of the HELB reanalysis, and 
the proposed mitigation strategies which now include normal plant 
equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
    In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that 
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will 
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and 
risk margin; therefore, the proposed does 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 margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB 
is a design criterion that is required to be considered in the 
design of structures, systems, or components and is not a design 
basis accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is 
appropriately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded 
that the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in the margin 
of safety. This LAR provides an overview of the HELB analysis, 
descriptions of station modifications that will be made because of 
the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed mitigation strategies which 
now include normal plant equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
    The changes described above provide a HELB licensing basis and 
have no effect on the plant safety margins that have been 
established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting 
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the TSs. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research Test Reactor, Montgomery County, 
Maryland

    Date of amendment request: July 5, 2019, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 11, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML19197A045 and ML19289A494, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
SGI. The amendment would revise the NIST security plan regarding its 
physical security personnel.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment only proposes slight changes to security 
personnel and does not increase the probability or consequences of 
any accident.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The possible changes to security personnel do not create a new 
type of accident.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    No margin of safety is reduced by this proposed change in 
security personnel, as the number of security personnel either 
remains the same or increased.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Nist, Deputy Chief Counsel for 
NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
    NRC Branch Chief: Greg Casto.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19275E393.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
SUNSI. The proposed amendment would modify the TS 3.7.15 ``Spent Fuel 
Assembly Storage'' and TS 4.3 ``Fuel Storage.'' The purpose of the 
proposed changes is to update the spent fuel pool criticality safety 
analysis and to account for the impact on the spent fuel for a future 
measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate amendment request.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following 
criticality events and accidents and no impacts were identified: (1) 
Loss of spent fuel pool cooling system, (2) dropping a fuel assembly 
into an already loaded storage cell, and (3) the misloading of a 
single fuel assembly or multiple fuel assemblies into a cell for 
which the restrictions on location, enrichment, or burnup are not 
satisfied.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability

[[Page 734]]

of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because the changes in the 
criticality safety analysis have no bearing on the systems, 
structures, and components involved in initiating such an event. A 
criticality safety analysis of the limiting fuel loading 
configuration confirmed that the condition would remain subcritical 
for a range of normal and accident conditions. The effects of the 
accident conditions are bounded by the multiple fuel assembly 
misload accident.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel assembly being dropped into an 
already loaded storage cell because fuel movement will continue to 
be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. The consequences 
of a dropped fuel assembly are not changed; there will continue to 
be significant separation between the dropped fuel assembly and the 
active regions of the fuel assemblies. The effects of this accident 
are bounded by the multiple fuel assembly misload accident.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel 
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection 
and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require 
identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel 
assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of 
a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity 
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and 
requirements continue to be met for the multiple fuel assembly 
misload accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of a criticality 
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 potential for criticality in the spent fuel pool is not a 
new or different type of accident. Storage configurations allowed by 
TSs 3.7.15 and 4.3 have been analyzed to demonstrate that the pool 
remains subcritical.
    The new criticality safety analysis includes analysis of a 
multiple misload accident scenario; only single misload events were 
previously analyzed. The inclusion of this analysis does not imply 
the creation of the possibility of a new accident, but simply 
expands the boundaries of the analyzed accident conditions to ensure 
that all potential accidents are properly considered.
    There is no significant change in plant configuration, equipment 
design or usage of plant equipment. The updated criticality safety 
analysis assures that the pool will continue to remain subcritical.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current 
margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of 
safety for subcriticality required by Amendment No. 133 to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-2 and Amendment No. 125 to Facility 
Operating License, No. NPF-8 for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML013130226) is unchanged. The updated 
criticality safety analysis confirms that operation in accordance 
with the proposed amendment continues to meet the required 
subcriticality margin.
    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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19274C003.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
SUNSI. The amendment would revise WBN, Unit 2, TS 3.4.17, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Tube Integrity''; TS 5.7.2.12, ``Steam Generator (SG) 
Program''; and TS 5.9.9, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to 
allow the use of Westinghouse leak-limiting non-nickel banded Alloy 800 
sleeves to repair degraded SG tubes as an alternative to plugging the 
tubes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Westinghouse non-nickel banded Alloy 800 leak-limiting 
repair sleeves are designed using the applicable American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code; 
therefore, they meet the design objectives of the original SG 
tubing. The applied stresses and fatigue usage for the repair 
sleeves are bounded by the limits established in the ASME Code. 
Mechanical testing has shown that the structural strength of repair 
sleeves under normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions 
provides margin to the acceptance limits. The acceptance limits 
bound the most limiting (three times normal operating pressure 
differential) burst margin recommended by Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes.'' 
Burst testing of sleeve/tube assemblies has demonstrated that no 
unacceptable levels of primary-to-secondary leakage are expected 
during any plant condition.
    The Alloy 800 repair sleeve depth-based structural limit is 
determined using the RG 1.121 guidance and the pressure stress 
equation of ASME Code, Section III with additional margin added to 
account for configuration of long axial cracks. A bounding detection 
threshold value has been conservatively identified and statistically 
established to account for growth and determine the repair sleeve/
tube assembly plugging limit. A sleeved tube is plugged on detection 
of degradation in the sleeve/tube assembly.
    Evaluation of the repaired SG tube testing and analysis 
indicates no detrimental effects on the sleeve or sleeved tube 
assembly from reactor system flow, primary or secondary coolant 
chemistries, thermal conditions or transients, or pressure 
conditions as may be experienced at WBN Unit 2. Corrosion testing 
and historical performance of sleeve/tube assemblies indicates no 
evidence of sleeve or tube corrosion considered detrimental under 
anticipated service conditions.
    The implementation of the proposed amendment has no significant 
effect on either the configuration of the plant or the manner in 
which it is operated. The consequences of a hypothetical failure of 
the sleeve/tube assembly is bounded by the current SG tube rupture 
(SGTR) analysis described in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR. Due to the 
slight reduction in diameter caused by the sleeve wall thickness, 
primary coolant release rates would be slightly less than assumed 
for the SGTR analysis and; therefore, would result in lower total 
primary fluid mass release to the secondary system. A main steam 
line break or feedwater line break will not cause a SGTR because the 
sleeves are analyzed for a maximum accident differential pressure 
greater that that predicted in the WBN Unit 2 safety analysis. The 
minimal leakage that could occur during repair of the sleeve/tube 
assembly during plant operation is well within the TS leakage limits 
when grouped with current alternate plugging criteria calculated 
leakage values.
    Therefore, TVA has concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Alloy 800 leak-limiting repair sleeves are designed using 
the applicable ASME Code as guidance; therefore, it meets the 
objectives of the original steam generator

[[Page 735]]

tubing. As a result, the functions of the SG will not be 
significantly affected by the installation of the proposed sleeve. 
The proposed repair sleeves do not interact with any other plant 
systems. Any accident as a result of potential tube or sleeve 
degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is bounded by the 
existing SGTR accident analysis. The continued integrity of the 
installed sleeve/tube assembly is periodically verified by the TS 
requirements and the sleeved tube plugged on detection of 
degradation.
    The implementation of the proposed amendment has no significant 
effect on either the configuration of the plant, or the manner in 
which it is operated. Therefore, TVA concludes that this proposed 
change does 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 repair of degraded SG tubes with Alloy 800 leak-limiting 
repair sleeves restores the structural integrity of the degraded 
tube under normal operating and postulated accident conditions and 
thereby maintains current core cooling margin as opposed to plugging 
the tube and taking it out of service. The design safety factors 
utilized for the repair sleeves are consistent with the safety 
factors in the ASME Code used in the original SG design. The 
portions of the installed sleeve/tube assembly that represent the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary can be monitored for the 
initiation of sleeve/tube wall degradation and affected tube plugged 
on detection. Use of the previously identified design criteria and 
design verification testing assures that the margin to safety is not 
different from the original SG tubes.
    Therefore, TVA concludes that 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 Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Docket No. 50-184, 
Center for Neutron Research Test Reactor, Montgomery County, Maryland

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    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 Deputy 
General Counsel for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 [email protected] and 
[email protected], 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:
    (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, NRC 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 C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the 
requestor's

[[Page 736]]

trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can 
only be submitted electronically through the Electronic Questionnaires 
for Investigations Processing website, a secure website that is owned 
and operated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 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 Administrative 
Services, Mail Services Center, Mail Stop P1-37, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to 
[email protected]. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation identification and criminal history 
records check.
    (d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $357.00 \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 OPMs 
adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) If the requestor or any individual(s) 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 a 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-07D04M, 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 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 are not 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 
Agreement or Affidavit 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 receipt of (or access to) that information. 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.
    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 a final adverse 
determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the 
proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, 
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(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.

[[Page 737]]

    (3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to 
standing or need to know for SGI 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 Office of Administration's 
final adverse determination with respect to trustworthiness and 
reliability for access to SGI by filing a request for review in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iv).
    (5) 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 whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the 
NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed 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.
    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, 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/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 10th of December 2019.

    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 NonSafeguards
                            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.
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 a
                            final 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 under 10 CFR
                            2.336(f)(1)(iv).
A........................  If access granted: Issuance of a decision by
                            a presiding officer or other designated
                            officer 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.

[[Page 738]]

 
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 opportunity to
                            request a hearing and petition for leave to
                            intervene), 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. 2019-26931 Filed 1-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P