81 FR 36601 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)

Page Range		36601-36610
FR Document		2016-12484

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of five amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP); Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Hope Creek Generating Station. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36601-36610]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12484]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0096]

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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of five amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP); Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Hope Creek Generating Station. For each
amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 7, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by August 8, 2016. Any potential party as defined in
Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by June 17, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0096. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0096 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0096.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0096, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://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 submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

[[Page 36602]]

III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in
the Federal Register. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). If a hearing is requested, and the Commission
has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination
on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the
final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition

[[Page 36603]]

should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by
August 8, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)''
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that
under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
August 8, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding U.S. government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.

[[Page 36604]]

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16075A103.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the PNP Technical Specifications (TS), Section
5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and Section 5.6.8, ``Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' Specifically, the licensee
requested to implement an alternate repair criteria (ARC), that invokes
a C-Star inspection length (C*), on a permanent basis for the cold-leg
side of the SGs' tubesheet.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Previously evaluated accidents are initiated by the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change alters
the SG cold leg repair criteria by limiting tube inspections length
in the cold leg tubesheet, to the safety significant section, C*
length, and, as such, does not have a detrimental impact on the
integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that
initiates an analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change has no
significant effect upon previously evaluated accident probabilities
or consequences.
The proposed amendment to revise the PNP SG tube repair criteria
in TS 5.5.8c, does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Alternate repair
criteria are being proposed for the cold leg side of the SGs that
duplicate the current alternate repair criteria for the hot leg side
of the SGs, in TS 5.5.8c.1. The proposed SG tube inspection length
maintains the existing design limits of the SGs and therefore does
not increase the probability or consequences of an accident
involving a tube rupture or primary to secondary accident-induced
leakage, as previously evaluated in the PNP Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Also, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Steam Generator Program Guidelines (NEI 97-06) [(ADAMS Accession No.
ML111310708)] performance criteria for structural integrity and
accident-induced leakage, which are incorporated in PNP TS 5.5.8,
would continue to be satisfied.
Implementing an alternate repair criteria would allow SG tubes
with flaws below the C* length to remain in service. The potential
consequences to leaving these flawed tubes inservice are tube burst,
tube pullout, and accident induced tube leakage. Tube burst is
prevented for a tube with defects within the tubesheet region
because of the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Tube pullout
could result from the axial forces induced by primary to secondary
differential pressures that occur during the bounding event of the
main steam line break. A joint industry test program report, WCAP-
16208-P, NDE Inspection Length for CE Steam Generator Tubesheet
Region Explosive Expansions, Revision 1, May 2005 [(Non-proprietary
version under ADAMS Accession No. ML051520417)], has defined the
non-degraded tube to tubesheet joint length (C*) required to
preclude tube pullout and maintain acceptable primary to secondary
accident-induced leakage, conservatively assuming a 360 degree
circumferential through wall crack exists immediately below this C*
length.
The PNP UFSAR Sections 14.14, Steam Line Rupture Incident,
14.15, Steam Generator Tube Rupture with a Loss of Offsite Power,
and 14.16, Control Rod Ejection, primary coolant system leakage
limit is 0.3 gallon per minute (gpm) (432 gallons per day) in the
unaffected SG. For the tube rupture accident, this 0.3 gpm leakage
is in addition to the break flow rate associated with the rupture of
a single SG tube. The WCAP-16208-P report used a primary to
secondary accident-induced leakage criteria value of 0.1 gpm to
derive the C* length. Use of 0.1 gpm ensures that the PNP TS
limiting accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm is met.
For PNP, the derived C* length for the cold leg side of the SGs
is 12.5 inches, which is the same C* length, as the current TS, for
the hot leg side of the SGs. Any degradation below the C* length is
shown by test results and analysis to meet the NEI 97-06 performance
criteria, thereby precluding an increased probability of a tube
rupture event or an increase in the consequences of a steam line
rupture incident or control rod ejection accident.
Therefore, the C* lengths for the SG hot and cold legs provide
assurance that the NEI 97-06 requirements for tube burst and leakage
are met and that they conservatively derived maximum combined
leakage from both tubesheet joints (hot and cold legs) is less than
0.2 gpm at accident conditions. This combined leakage criterion of
0.2 gpm in the faulted loop retains margin against the PNP TS
allowable accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm per SG.
In summary, the proposed changes to the PNP TS maintain existing
design limits, meet the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and
Regulatory Guide 1.121 [ADAMS Accession No. ML003739366], and the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in
the UFSAR.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment provides for an alternate repair criteria
that excludes the lower portion of the steam generator cold leg
tubes from inspection below a C* length by implementing an alternate
repair criteria. It does not affect the design of the SGs or their
method of operation. It does not impact any other plant system or
component. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the
accident analysis.
The proposed amendment does not introduce any new equipment,
change existing equipment, create any new failure modes for existing
equipment, nor introduce any new malfunctions resulting from tube
degradation. SG tube integrity is shown to be maintained for all
plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed alternate
repair criteria for the SG cold leg tubesheet region.
The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously

[[Page 36605]]

evaluated because SG tube leakage limits and structural integrity
would continue to be maintained during all plant conditions upon
implementation of the proposed alternate repair criteria to the PNP
TSs. The alternate repair criteria does not introduce any new
mechanisms that might result in a different kind of accident from
those previously evaluated. Even with the limiting circumstances of
a complete circumferential separation (360 degree through wall
crack) of a tube below the C* length, tube pullout is precluded and
leakage is predicted to be maintained with the TS and accident
analysis limits during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides an alternate repair criteria for
the SG cold leg that invokes a C* inspection length criteria. The
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety since design SG primary to secondary leakage limits
have been analyzed to continue to be met. This will ensure that the
SG cold legs tubes continue to function as a primary coolant system
boundary by maintaining their integrity. Tube integrity includes
both structural and leakage integrity. The proposed cold leg
tubesheet inspection C* depth, of 12.5 inches below the bottom of
the cold-leg expansion transition or top of the cold-leg tubesheet,
which is lower, would ensure tube integrity is maintained during
normal and accident conditions because any degradation below C* is
shown by test results and analyses to be acceptable.
Operation with potential tube degradation below the proposed C*
cold leg inspection length within the tubesheet region of the SG
tubing meets the recommendation of NEI 97-06 SG program guidelines.
Additionally, the proposed changes also maintain the structural and
accident-induced leakage integrity as required by NEI 97-06.
The total leakage from an undetected flaw population below the
C* inspection length for the cold leg tubesheet under postulated
accident conditions is accounted for, in order to assure it is
within the bounds of the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2
CSPs Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CNP
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation
date for the CNP CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-
related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing
the CNP CSP. The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54
are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber
attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat,
thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital
computer and communications systems and networks are adequately
protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CNP CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
A revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule does not require
any plant modifications. The proposed revision to the CSP
Implementation Schedule does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, 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. Revision of the CNP CSP
Implementation Schedule does not introduce new equipment that could
create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment
failure modes are created. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed amendment
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and does not
alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP, as implemented by
milestones 1-7, provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment does not
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

[[Page 36606]]

Edition.'' As part of the Transition License Conditions included in
Amendment No. 275, the licensee committed to implement certain plant
modifications as stated in Paragraph 3.D.(3)(b) of Renewed Facility
Operating License No. DPR-40. Based on updated fire modeling
assumptions, the licensee is proposing to withdraw the commitments in
REC-119 and REC-120 due to the fact that they are not necessary to meet
the performance requirements of the risk-informed fire protection
standard.
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 Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) documents the analyses
of design basis accidents (DBA) at FCS. The proposed amendment does
not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility and does
not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) to perform their design functions. SSCs required
to safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
The proposed amendment makes no physical changes to the plant
and does not change the manner in which plant systems are
controlled. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed amendment
does not increase the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the assumed function. The proposed amendment will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological
dose criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not increased with the
implementation of the proposed amendment.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of FCS in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously
analyzed accident with off-site dose was included in the evaluation
of DBAs documented in the USAR. The proposed change does not alter
the requirements or function for systems required during accident
conditions. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not change
the previous conclusion that the fire protection licensing basis
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and
the guidance in [Regulatory Guide (RG)] 1.205, Revision 0 [Risk-
Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants, May 2006, available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML061100174], will not result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify a commitment
made as a licensing condition under Amendment No. 275 which
implemented OPPD's transition to NFPA 805. The proposed amendment is
not intended to reduce or, in any way, adversely affect compliance
with NFPA 805 and is supported by engineering analyses that continue
to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in RG 1.205, Revision 0.
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been
evaluated. Based on this, the implementation of the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this
amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on
any safety related system as a result of this amendment. Therefore,
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind
of accident previously evaluated is not created with the
implementation of this amendment.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of FCS in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of
equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the USAR. This amendment
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their
design function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: October 26, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated December 20, 2011; April 2, April 30, June 6, August 2,
September 11, November 27, and December 5, 2012; March 7, March 25,
April 30, May 9, May 30, and September 17, 2013; April 24 and April 30,
2014; February 2 and June 22, 2015; and January 25 and February 11,
2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML113070457, ML113610541, ML12094A072, ML12131A513, ML121700592,
ML122220135, ML12256A308, ML130040687, ML12342A149, ML13267A127,
ML130930344, ML13121A089, ML13130A059, ML131540159, ML13261A354,
ML14205A031, ML14121A002, ML15062A386, ML15173A469, ML16049A006, and
ML16061A481, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the facility operating licenses to allow the
permanent replacement of the current DCPP Eagle 21 digital process
protection system (PPS) with a new digital PPS that is based on the
Invensys Operations Management Tricon Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC), Version 10, and the CS Innovations, LLC (a Westinghouse Electric
Company), Advanced Logic System. The amendments would also incorporate
a revised definition of Channel Operational Test in Technical
Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions.''
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33243). The notice is being reissued in
its entirety to include a revised description of the amendment request
(change to TS 1.1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards

[[Page 36607]]

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 would allow Pacific Gas and Electric Company
to permanently replace the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Eagle 21
digital process protection system with a new digital process
protection system that is based on the Invensys Operations
Management Tricon Programmable Logic Controller, Version 10, and the
CS Innovations Advanced Logic System. The process protection system
replacement is designed to applicable codes and standards for
safety-grade protection systems for nuclear power plants and
incorporates additional redundancy and diversity features and
therefore, does not result in an increase in the probability of
inadvertent actuation or probability of failure to initiate a
protective function. The process protection system replacement does
not introduce any new credible failure mechanisms or malfunctions
that cause an accident. The process protection system replacement
design will continue to perform the reactor trip system and
engineered safety features actuation system functions assumed in the
Final Safety Analysis Report within the response time assumed in the
Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses.
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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to permanently replace the current Diablo
Canyon Power Plant Eagle 21 digital process protection system with a
new digital process protection system. The process protection system
performs the process protection functions for the reactor protection
system that monitors selected plant parameters and initiates
protective action as required. Accidents that may occur due to
inadvertent actuation of the process protection system, such as an
inadvertent safety injection actuation, are considered in the Final
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses.
The protection system is designed with redundancy such that a
single failure to generate an initiation signal in the process
protection system will not cause failure to trip the reactor nor
failure to actuate the engineered safeguard features when required.
Neither will such a single failure cause spurious or inadvertent
reactor trips [n]or engineered safeguard features actuations because
coincidence of two or more initiation signals is required for the
solid state protection system to generate a trip or actuation
command. If an inadvertent actuation occurs for any reason, existing
control room alarms and indications will notify the operator to take
corrective action.
The process protection system replacement design includes
enhanced diversity features compared to the current process
protection system to provide additional assurance that the
protection system actions credited with automatic operation in the
Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses will be performed
automatically when required should a common cause failure occur
concurrently with a design basis event.
The process protection system replacement does not result in any
new credible failure mechanisms or malfunctions. The current Eagle
21 process protection system utilizes digital technology and
therefore the use of digital technology in the process protection
system replacement does not introduce a new type of failure
mechanism. Although extremely unlikely, the current Eagle 21 process
protection system is susceptible to a credible common-cause software
failure that could adversely affect automatic performance of the
protection function. The process protection system replacement
contains new, additional diversity features that prevent a common-
cause software failure from completely disabling the process
protection system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The reactor protection system is fundamental to plant safety and
performs reactor trip system and engineered safety features
actuation system functions to limit the consequences of Condition II
(faults of moderate frequency), Condition III (infrequent faults),
and Condition IV (limiting faults) events. This is accomplished by
sensing selected plant parameters and determining whether
predetermined instrument settings are being exceeded. If
predetermined instrument settings are exceeded, the reactor
protection system sends actuation signals to trip the reactor and
actuate those components that mitigate the severity of the accident.
The process protection system replacement design will continue
to perform the reactor trip system and engineered safety features
actuation functions assumed in the Final Safety Analysis Report
within the response time assumed Final Safety Analysis Report
Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses. The use of the process
protection system replacement does not result in a design basis or
safety limit being exceeded or changed. The change to the process
protection system has no impact on the reactor fuel, reactor vessel,
or containment fission product barriers. The reliability and
availability of the reactor protection system is improved with the
process protection system replacement, and the reactor protection
system will continue to effectively perform its function of sensing
plant parameters to initiate protective actions to limit or mitigate
events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of accidents occurring is not affected by the
PRNM system, as the PRNM system is not the initiator of any accident
and does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an
accident. The transition from flow-biased to power-biased RBM does
not increase the probability of an accident; the RBM is not involved
in the initiation of any accident. The regulatory criteria
established for the APRM, OPRM, and RBM systems will be maintained
with the installation of the upgraded PRNM system. Therefore, the

[[Page 36608]]

proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of accidents are not affected by the PRNM
system, as the setpoints in the PRNM system will be established so
that all analytical limits are met. The unavailability of the new
system will be equal to or less than the existing system and, as a
result, the scram reliability will be equal to or better than the
existing system. No new challenges to safety-related equipment will
result from the PRNM system modification. The change to power biased
RBM allows for Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) analyses performed for
each future reload to take credit for rod blocks during the rod
withdrawal transients. The results of the RWE event analysis will be
used in establishing the cycle specific operating limits for the
fuel. The proposed change will also replace the currently installed
and NRC approved Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) OPRM Option III long-term
stability solution with an NRC approved General Electric-Hitachi
(GEH) Detect and Suppress Solution--Confirmation Density (DSS-CD)
stability solution (reviewed and approved by the NRC in Reference 2,
Licensing Topical Report). The OPRM meets the GDC [General Design
Criteria] 10, ``Reactor Design,'' and 12, ``Suppression of Reactor
Power Oscillations,'' requirements by automatically detecting and
suppressing design basis thermal hydraulic oscillations to protect
specified fuel design limits. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the 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 amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The components of the PRNM system will be supplied to equivalent
or better design and qualification criteria than is currently
required for the plant. Equipment that could be affected by [the]
PRNM system has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-
related equipment lineup, accident scenario, or system interaction
mode was identified. Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will not
adversely affect plant equipment.
The new PRNM system uses digital equipment that has software
controlled digital processing points and software controlled digital
processing compared to the existing PRNM system that uses mostly
analog and discrete component processing (excluding the existing
OPRM). Specific failures of hardware and potential software common
cause failures are different from the existing system. The effects
of potential software common cause failure are mitigated by specific
hardware design and system architecture as discussed in Section 6.0
of the NUMAC PRNM LTR [Licensing Topical Report], and supported by a
plant specific evaluation. The transition from a flow-biased RBM to
a power dependent RBM does not change its function to provide a
control rod block when specified setpoints are reached. The change
does not introduce a sequence of events or introduce a new failure
mode that would create a new or different type of accident.
Failure(s) of the system have the same overall effect as the present
design. No new or different kind of accident is introduced.
Therefore, the PRNM system will not adversely affect plant
equipment.
The currently installed APRM System is replaced with a NUMAC
PRNM system that performs the existing power range monitoring
functions and adds an OPRM to react automatically to potential
reactor thermal-hydraulic instabilities.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes associated with the NUMAC PRNM system
implement the constraints of the NUMAC PRNM system design and
related stability analyses. The NUMAC PRNM system change does not
impact reactor operating parameters or the functional requirements
of the PRNM system. The replacement equipment continues to provide
information, enforce control rod blocks, and initiate reactor scrams
under appropriate specified conditions. The power dependent RBM will
continue to prevent rod withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod
block setpoint is reached. The MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio]
and Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) thermal limits will be
developed on a cycle specific basis to ensure that fuel thermal
mechanical design bases remain within the licensing limits during a
control rod withdrawal error event and to ensure that the MCPR SL
[Safety Limit] will not be violated as a result of a control rod
withdrawal error event.
The proposed change does not reduce safety margins. The
replacement PRNM equipment has improved channel trip accuracy
compared to the current analog system, and meets or exceeds system
requirements previously assumed in setpoint analysis. The power
dependent RBM will support cycle specific RWE analysis ensuring fuel
limits are not exceeded. Thus, the ability of the new equipment to
enforce compliance with margins of safety equals or exceeds the
ability of the equipment which it replaces.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate 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\

[[Page 36609]]

The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

ATTACHMENT 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+ 25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+ 7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).

[[Page 36610]]

25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt + 30) If NRC staff finds standing
and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff
to complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt + 25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-12484 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

36602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices

III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance subject facility operating license or to rely to establish those facts or expert
of Amendments to Facility Operating combined license. Requests for a opinion. The petition must include
Licenses and Combined Licenses, hearing and a petition for leave to sufficient information to show that a
Proposed No Significant Hazards intervene shall be filed in accordance genuine dispute exists with the
Consideration Determination, and with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules applicant on a material issue of law or
Opportunity for a Hearing of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR fact. Contentions shall be limited to
The Commission has made a part 2. Interested person(s) should matters within the scope of the
proposed determination that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, amendment under consideration. The
which is available at the NRC’s PDR, contention must be one which, if
following amendment requests involve
located at One White Flint North, Room proven, would entitle the requestor/
no significant hazards consideration.
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner to relief. A requestor/
Under the Commission’s regulations in
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The petitioner who fails to satisfy these
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
NRC’s regulations are accessible requirements with respect to at least one
of the facility in accordance with the
electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to
proposed amendment would not (1)
the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party.
involve a significant increase in the Those permitted to intervene become
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
probability or consequences of an parties to the proceeding, subject to any
collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
accident previously evaluated, or (2) limitations in the order granting leave to
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
create the possibility of a new or within 60 days, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to
different kind of accident from any presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the
accident previously evaluated, or (3) Commission or by the Chief hearing with respect to resolution of
involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic that person’s admitted contentions,
margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will including the opportunity to present
proposed determination for each rule on the request and/or petition; and evidence and to submit a cross-
amendment request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief examination plan for cross-examination
The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic of witnesses, consistent with NRC
comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a regulations, policies and procedures.
determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate Petitions for leave to intervene must
within 30 days after the date of order. be filed no later than 60 days from the
publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a date of publication of this notice.
considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
determination. forth with particularity the interest of to intervene, and motions for leave to
Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and file new or amended contentions that
issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the are filed after the 60-day deadline will
expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition not be entertained absent a
publication of this notice. The should specifically explain the reasons determination by the presiding officer
Commission may issue the license why intervention should be permitted that the filing demonstrates good cause
amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). If a hearing is
determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of requested, and the Commission has not
involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the made a final determination on the issue
consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s of no significant hazards consideration,
Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party the Commission will make a final
prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and determination on the issue of no
comment period should circumstances extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s significant hazards consideration. The
change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in final determination will serve to decide
period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible when the hearing is held. If the final
timely way would result, for example, effect of any decision or order which determination is that the amendment
in derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the request involves no significant hazards
Should the Commission take action requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The consideration, the Commission may
prior to the expiration of either the petition must also set forth the specific issue the amendment and make it
comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/ immediately effective, notwithstanding
will publish a notice of issuance in the petitioner seeks to have litigated at the the request for a hearing. Any hearing
Federal Register. Should the proceeding. held would take place after issuance of
Commission make a final No Significant Each contention must consist of a the amendment. If the final
Hazards Consideration Determination, specific statement of the issue of law or determination is that the amendment
any hearing will take place after fact to be raised or controverted. In request involves a significant hazards
issuance. The Commission expects that addition, the requestor/petitioner shall consideration, then any hearing held
the need to take this action will occur provide a brief explanation of the bases would take place before the issuance of
very infrequently. for the contention and a concise any amendment unless the Commission
statement of the alleged facts or expert finds an imminent danger to the health
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing opinion which support the contention or safety of the public, in which case it
and Petition for Leave to Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner will issue an appropriate order or rule
Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention under 10 CFR part 2.
publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner A State, local governmental body,
whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of agency thereof, may submit a petition to
and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on the Commission to participate as a party
to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36603

should state the nature and extent of the at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system
petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends
The petition should be submitted to the allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice
Commission by August 8, 2016. The representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The
petition must be filed in accordance documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email
with the filing instructions in the server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the
‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRC’s Office of the
section of this document, and should Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who
meet the requirements for petitions for submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary
leave to intervene set forth in this hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the
section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not
a State, local governmental body, or representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore,
agency thereof does not need to address this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or
the standing requirements in 10 CFR establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must
2.309(d) if the facility is located within hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID
its boundaries. A State, local Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/
governmental body, Federally- electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via
thereof may also have the opportunity to digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system.
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). NRC’s public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using
If a hearing is granted, any person www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
who does not wish, or is not qualified, getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the
to become a party to the proceeding requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through
may, in the discretion of the presiding Submittal server are detailed in the the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the
officer, be permitted to make a limited NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic NRC’s public Web site at http://
appearance pursuant to the provisions Submission,’’ which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a agency’s public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to
limited appearance may make an oral or www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-
written statement of position on the submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
issues, but may not otherwise attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available
participate in the proceeding. A limited on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
appearance may be made at any session NRC’s E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday,
of the hearing or at any prehearing unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding U.S. government holidays.
conference, subject to the limits and System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they
conditions as may be imposed by the offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting
presiding officer. Persons desiring to software. documents electronically must file an
make a limited appearance are If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with
requested to inform the Secretary of the submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
Commission by August 8, 2016. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to
participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRC’s online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted
All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the
request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery
documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary,
governmental entities participating is available on the NRC’s public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants
Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are
submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on
documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is
cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail
storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited
unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the
described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having
To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant
days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the
the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36605

evaluated because SG tube leakage limits and Indiana Michigan Power Company, Revision of the CNP CSP Implementation
structural integrity would continue to be Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald Schedule does not introduce new equipment
maintained during all plant conditions upon C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 that could create a new or different kind of
implementation of the proposed alternate accident, and no new equipment failure
and 2, Berrien County, Michigan modes are created. No new accident
repair criteria to the PNP TSs. The alternate
repair criteria does not introduce any new Date of amendment request: March scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
mechanisms that might result in a different 14, 2016. A publicly-available version is single failures are introduced as a result of
kind of accident from those previously in ADAMS under Accession No. this proposed amendment.
evaluated. Even with the limiting ML16077A029. Therefore, the proposed change does not
circumstances of a complete circumferential Description of amendment request: create the possibility of a new or different
separation (360 degree through wall crack) of kind of accident from any previously
This amendment request contains evaluated.
a tube below the C* length, tube pullout is sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
precluded and leakage is predicted to be 3. Does the proposed change involve a
information (SUNSI). The proposed significant reduction in a margin of safety?
maintained with the TS and accident amendment would revise the operating Response: No.
analysis limits during all plant conditions.
license to extend the completion date Plant safety margins are established
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
for full implementation of the CNP through limiting conditions for operation,
not create the possibility of a new or different limiting safety system settings, and safety
kind of accident from any accident Cyber Security Plan (CSP).
Basis for proposed no significant limits specified in the technical
previously evaluated. specifications. The proposed amendment
3. Does the proposed amendment involve hazards consideration determination:
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the functions and does not alter the way the
Response: No. licensee has provided its analysis of the plant is operated. The CSP, as implemented
The proposed change provides an alternate issue of no significant hazards by milestones 1–7, provides assurance that
repair criteria for the SG cold leg that invokes consideration, which is presented safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber
a C* inspection length criteria. The proposed below: attacks. The proposed amendment does not
amendment does not involve a significant introduce any new uncertainties or change
reduction in a margin of safety since design 1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability of any existing uncertainties associated with
SG primary to secondary leakage limits have any safety limit. The proposed amendment
been analyzed to continue to be met. This occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated? has no effect on the structural integrity of the
will ensure that the SG cold legs tubes fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure
continue to function as a primary coolant Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the boundary, or containment structure.
system boundary by maintaining their Therefore, the proposed change does not
integrity. Tube integrity includes both CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2 CSPs Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CNP involve a significant reduction in a margin of
structural and leakage integrity. The safety.
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision
proposed cold leg tubesheet inspection C*
of the full implementation date for the CNP The NRC staff has reviewed the
depth, of 12.5 inches below the bottom of the
CSP does not involve modifications to any licensee’s analysis and, based on this
cold-leg expansion transition or top of the
safety-related structures, systems or review, it appears that the three
cold-leg tubesheet, which is lower, would
components (SSCs). Rather, the
ensure tube integrity is maintained during implementation schedule provides a standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
normal and accident conditions because any timetable for fully implementing the CNP satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
degradation below C* is shown by test results CSP. The CSP describes how the proposes to determine that the
and analyses to be acceptable. requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be amendment request involves no
Operation with potential tube degradation implemented to identify, evaluate, and significant hazards consideration.
below the proposed C* cold leg inspection mitigate cyber attacks up to and including Attorney for licensee: Robert B.
length within the tubesheet region of the SG the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
tubing meets the recommendation of NEI 97– achieving high assurance that the facility’s
06 SG program guidelines. Additionally, the Cook Place, Bridgman, Michigan 49106.
digital computer and communications NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
proposed changes also maintain the systems and networks are adequately
structural and accident-induced leakage protected from cyber attacks. The revision of Omaha Public Power District (OPPD),
integrity as required by NEI 97–06. the CNP CSP Implementation Schedule will Docket No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun
The total leakage from an undetected flaw not alter previously evaluated design basis Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington
population below the C* inspection length accident analysis assumptions, add any
for the cold leg tubesheet under postulated
County, Nebraska
accident initiators, modify the function of the
accident conditions is accounted for, in order plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any Date of amendment request: April 4,
to assure it is within the bounds of the plant safety-related SSCs are operated, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
accident analysis. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. ADAMS under Accession No.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does Therefore, the proposed changes do not ML16103A348.
not involve a significant reduction in a involve a significant increase in the Description of amendment request:
margin of safety. probability or consequences of an accident This amendment request contains
previously evaluated.
The NRC staff has reviewed the 2. Does the proposed change create the sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
licensee’s analysis and, based on this possibility of a new or different kind of information (SUNSI). The amendment
review, it appears that the three accident from any accident previously would modify License Condition D, Fire
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated? Protection Program. License
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Response: No. Amendment No. 275, issued June 16,
A revision to the CSP Implementation 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

proposes to determine that the Schedule does not require any plant
amendment request involves no ML14098A092), implemented the
modifications. The proposed revision to the licensee’s transition to a risk-informed,
significant hazards consideration. CSP Implementation Schedule does not alter
performance-based fire protection
Attorney for licensee: Mrs. Jeanne the plant configuration, require new plant
equipment to be installed, alter accident program based on National Fire
Cho, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Protection Association Standard (NFPA)
Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the 805, ‘‘Performance-Based Standard for
New York 10601. manner in which systems are operated, Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Electric Generating Plants, 2001

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

36606 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices

Edition.’’ As part of the Transition conditions. Implementation of the proposed satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
License Conditions included in amendment will not change the previous proposes to determine that the
Amendment No. 275, the licensee conclusion that the fire protection licensing amendment request involves no
basis which complies with the requirements significant hazards consideration.
committed to implement certain plant
of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance
modifications as stated in Paragraph Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka,
in [Regulatory Guide (RG)] 1.205, Revision 0
3.D.(3)(b) of Renewed Facility Operating [Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street
License No. DPR–40. Based on updated Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817.
fire modeling assumptions, the licensee Power Plants, May 2006, available under NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
is proposing to withdraw the ADAMS Accession No. ML061100174], will Pascarelli.
commitments in REC–119 and REC–120 not result in new or different accidents. Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
due to the fact that they are not The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect accident initiators nor alter
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
necessary to meet the performance Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
design assumptions, conditions, or
requirements of the risk-informed fire and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County,
configurations of the facility. The proposed
protection standard. amendment does not adversely affect the California
Basis for proposed no significant ability of SSCs to perform their design Date of amendment request: October
hazards consideration determination: function. SSCs required to safely shutdown 26, 2011, as supplemented by letters
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the reactor and maintain it in a safe
dated December 20, 2011; April 2, April
licensee has provided its analysis of the shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions. 30, June 6, August 2, September 11,
issue of no significant hazards
The purpose of the proposed amendment November 27, and December 5, 2012;
consideration, which is presented
is to modify a commitment made as a March 7, March 25, April 30, May 9,
below:
licensing condition under Amendment No. May 30, and September 17, 2013; April
1. Does the proposed change involve a 275 which implemented OPPD’s transition to 24 and April 30, 2014; February 2 and
significant increase in the probability or NFPA 805. The proposed amendment is not June 22, 2015; and January 25 and
consequences of an accident previously intended to reduce or, in any way, adversely February 11, 2016. Publicly-available
evaluated? affect compliance with NFPA 805 and is versions are in ADAMS under
Response: No. supported by engineering analyses that
The Updated Safety Analysis Report Accession Nos. ML113070457,
continue to demonstrate compliance with 10
(USAR) documents the analyses of design CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG
ML113610541, ML12094A072,
basis accidents (DBA) at FCS. The proposed 1.205, Revision 0. ML12131A513, ML121700592,
amendment does not adversely affect The requirements of NFPA 805 address ML122220135, ML12256A308,
accident initiators nor alter design only fire protection and the impacts of fire ML130040687, ML12342A149,
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of on the plant that have previously been ML13267A127, ML130930344,
the facility and does not adversely affect the evaluated. Based on this, the implementation ML13121A089, ML13130A059,
ability of structures, systems, or components of the proposed amendment does not create ML131540159, ML13261A354,
(SSCs) to perform their design functions. the possibility of a new or different kind of ML14205A031, ML14121A002,
SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor accident from any kind of accident
and to maintain it in a safe shutdown ML15062A386, ML15173A469,
previously evaluated. No new accident
condition will remain capable of performing scenarios, transient precursors, failure
ML16049A006, and ML16061A481,
their design functions. mechanisms, or limiting single failures will respectively.
The proposed amendment makes no be introduced as a result of this amendment. Description of amendment request:
physical changes to the plant and does not There will be no adverse effect or challenges This amendment request contains
change the manner in which plant systems imposed on any safety related system as a sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
are controlled. Therefore, the implementation result of this amendment. Therefore, the information (SUNSI). The amendments
of the proposed amendment does not possibility of a new or different kind of would revise the facility operating
increase the probability of any accident accident from any kind of accident licenses to allow the permanent
previously evaluated. previously evaluated is not created with the
Equipment required to mitigate an accident
replacement of the current DCPP Eagle
implementation of this amendment. 21 digital process protection system
remains capable of performing the assumed 3. Does the proposed change involve a
function. The proposed amendment will not significant reduction in a margin of safety?
(PPS) with a new digital PPS that is
affect the source term, containment isolation, Response: No. based on the Invensys Operations
or radiological release assumptions used in Operation of FCS in accordance with the Management Tricon Programmable
evaluating the radiological consequences of proposed amendment does not involve a Logic Controller (PLC), Version 10, and
any accident previously evaluated. The significant reduction in the margin of safety. the CS Innovations, LLC (a
applicable radiological dose criteria will The proposed amendment does not alter the Westinghouse Electric Company),
continue to be met. Therefore, the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety Advanced Logic System. The
consequences of any accident previously system settings, or limiting conditions for
evaluated are not increased with the
amendments would also incorporate a
operation are determined. The safety analysis revised definition of Channel
implementation of the proposed amendment. acceptance criteria are not affected by this
2. Does the proposed change create the change. The proposed amendment does not
Operational Test in Technical
possibility of a new or different kind of adversely affect existing plant safety margins Specification (TS) 1.1, ‘‘Definitions.’’
accident from any accident previously or the reliability of equipment assumed to The license amendment request was
evaluated? mitigate accidents in the USAR. This originally noticed in the Federal
Response: No. amendment does not adversely affect the Register on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33243).
Operation of FCS in accordance with the The notice is being reissued in its
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

ability of SSCs to perform their design
proposed amendment does not create the function. SSCs required to safely shutdown entirety to include a revised description
possibility of a new or different kind of the reactor and to maintain it in a safe of the amendment request (change to TS
accident from any accident previously shutdown condition remain capable of
evaluated. Any scenario or previously
1.1).
performing their design functions. Basis for proposed no significant
analyzed accident with off-site dose was
included in the evaluation of DBAs The NRC staff has reviewed the hazards consideration determination:
documented in the USAR. The proposed licensee’s analysis and, based on this As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
change does not alter the requirements or review, it appears that the three licensee has provided its analysis of the
function for systems required during accident standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are issue of no significant hazards

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36607

consideration, which is presented system to provide additional assurance that satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
below: the protection system actions credited with proposes to determine that the
automatic operation in the Final Safety amendment requests involve no
1. Does the proposed change involve a Analysis Report accident analyses will be
significant increase in the probability or significant hazards consideration.
performed automatically when required
consequences of an accident previously should a common cause failure occur
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post,
evaluated? concurrently with a design basis event. Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Response: No. The process protection system replacement P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California
The proposed change would allow Pacific does not result in any new credible failure 94120.
Gas and Electric Company to permanently mechanisms or malfunctions. The current NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
replace the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Eagle Eagle 21 process protection system utilizes Pascarelli.
21 digital process protection system with a
digital technology and therefore the use of
new digital process protection system that is PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
digital technology in the process protection
based on the Invensys Operations Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
system replacement does not introduce a new
Management Tricon Programmable Logic County, New Jersey
type of failure mechanism. Although
Controller, Version 10, and the CS
extremely unlikely, the current Eagle 21 Date of amendment request:
Innovations Advanced Logic System. The
process protection system is susceptible to a
process protection system replacement is
credible common-cause software failure that
September 21, 2015, as supplemented
designed to applicable codes and standards by letter dated November 19, 2015.
could adversely affect automatic performance
for safety-grade protection systems for Publicly-available versions are in
of the protection function. The process
nuclear power plants and incorporates ADAMS under Accession Nos.
additional redundancy and diversity features protection system replacement contains new,
and therefore, does not result in an increase additional diversity features that prevent a ML15265A223 and ML15323A268,
in the probability of inadvertent actuation or common-cause software failure from respectively.
probability of failure to initiate a protective completely disabling the process protection Description of amendment request:
function. The process protection system system. This amendment request contains
replacement does not introduce any new Therefore, the proposed change does not sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
credible failure mechanisms or malfunctions create the possibility of a new or different
information (SUNSI). The proposed
that cause an accident. The process accident from any accident previously
evaluated. amendment would allow for the
protection system replacement design will replacement and upgrade of the existing
continue to perform the reactor trip system 3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety? analog Average Power Range Monitor
and engineered safety features actuation
system functions assumed in the Final Safety Response: No. (APRM) sub-system of the Neutron
Analysis Report within the response time The reactor protection system is Monitoring System with General
assumed in the Final Safety Analysis Report fundamental to plant safety and performs Electric-Hitachi digital Nuclear
Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses. reactor trip system and engineered safety Measurement Analysis and Control
Therefore, the proposed change does not features actuation system functions to limit (NUMAC) Power Range Neutron
involve a significant increase in the the consequences of Condition II (faults of
Monitoring (PRNM) system. The PRNM
probability or consequences of an accident moderate frequency), Condition III
(infrequent faults), and Condition IV upgrade also includes Oscillation Power
previously evaluated. Range Monitor (OPRM) capability and
2. Does the proposed change create the (limiting faults) events. This is accomplished
possibility of a new or different accident by sensing selected plant parameters and will allow full APRM, Rod Block
from any accident previously evaluated? determining whether predetermined Monitor (RBM), Technical Specification
Response: No. instrument settings are being exceeded. If Improvement Program implementation,
The proposed change is to permanently predetermined instrument settings are and will include application of
replace the current Diablo Canyon Power exceeded, the reactor protection system Technical Specification Task Force
Plant Eagle 21 digital process protection sends actuation signals to trip the reactor and Traveler-493, ‘‘Clarify Application of
system with a new digital process protection actuate those components that mitigate the
Setpoint Methodology for LSSS
system. The process protection system severity of the accident.
The process protection system replacement [Limiting Safety System Setting]
performs the process protection functions for
the reactor protection system that monitors design will continue to perform the reactor Functions,’’ to affected PRNM functions.
selected plant parameters and initiates trip system and engineered safety features Basis for proposed no significant
protective action as required. Accidents that actuation functions assumed in the Final hazards consideration determination:
may occur due to inadvertent actuation of the Safety Analysis Report within the response As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
process protection system, such as an time assumed Final Safety Analysis Report licensee has provided its analysis of the
inadvertent safety injection actuation, are Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses. The use issue of no significant hazards
considered in the Final Safety Analysis of the process protection system replacement consideration, which is presented
Report accident analyses. does not result in a design basis or safety below:
The protection system is designed with limit being exceeded or changed. The change
redundancy such that a single failure to to the process protection system has no 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
generate an initiation signal in the process impact on the reactor fuel, reactor vessel, or a significant increase in the probability or
protection system will not cause failure to containment fission product barriers. The consequences of an accident previously
trip the reactor nor failure to actuate the reliability and availability of the reactor evaluated?
engineered safeguard features when required. protection system is improved with the Response: No.
Neither will such a single failure cause process protection system replacement, and The probability of accidents occurring is
spurious or inadvertent reactor trips [n]or the reactor protection system will continue to not affected by the PRNM system, as the
engineered safeguard features actuations effectively perform its function of sensing PRNM system is not the initiator of any
because coincidence of two or more initiation accident and does not interact with
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

plant parameters to initiate protective actions
signals is required for the solid state to limit or mitigate events. equipment whose failure could cause an
protection system to generate a trip or Therefore, the proposed change does not accident. The transition from flow-biased to
actuation command. If an inadvertent involve a significant reduction in a margin of power-biased RBM does not increase the
actuation occurs for any reason, existing safety. probability of an accident; the RBM is not
control room alarms and indications will involved in the initiation of any accident.
notify the operator to take corrective action. The NRC staff has reviewed the The regulatory criteria established for the
The process protection system replacement licensee’s analysis and, based on this APRM, OPRM, and RBM systems will be
design includes enhanced diversity features review, it appears that the three maintained with the installation of the
compared to the current process protection standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are upgraded PRNM system. Therefore, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

36608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices

proposed change does not involve a block when specified setpoints are reached. Order Imposing Procedures for Access
significant increase in the probability of an The change does not introduce a sequence of to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
accident previously evaluated. events or introduce a new failure mode that Safeguards Information for Contention
The consequences of accidents are not would create a new or different type of Preparation
affected by the PRNM system, as the accident. Failure(s) of the system have the
setpoints in the PRNM system will be same overall effect as the present design. No Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
established so that all analytical limits are new or different kind of accident is Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
met. The unavailability of the new system introduced. Therefore, the PRNM system will Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
will be equal to or less than the existing not adversely affect plant equipment.
system and, as a result, the scram reliability The currently installed APRM System is Indiana Michigan Power Company,
will be equal to or better than the existing replaced with a NUMAC PRNM system that Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald
system. No new challenges to safety-related performs the existing power range C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
equipment will result from the PRNM system monitoring functions and adds an OPRM to Berrien County, Michigan
modification. The change to power biased react automatically to potential reactor
RBM allows for Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) thermal-hydraulic instabilities.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
analyses performed for each future reload to Therefore, the proposed change does not No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
take credit for rod blocks during the rod create the possibility of a new or different No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
withdrawal transients. The results of the kind of accident from any previously Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
RWE event analysis will be used in evaluated.
establishing the cycle specific operating Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
limits for the fuel. The proposed change will Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
also replace the currently installed and NRC Response: No.
and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
approved Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) OPRM The proposed TS changes associated with California
Option III long-term stability solution with the NUMAC PRNM system implement the PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
an NRC approved General Electric-Hitachi constraints of the NUMAC PRNM system
(GEH) Detect and Suppress Solution—
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
design and related stability analyses. The County, New Jersey
Confirmation Density (DSS–CD) stability NUMAC PRNM system change does not
solution (reviewed and approved by the NRC impact reactor operating parameters or the A. This Order contains instructions
in Reference 2, Licensing Topical Report). functional requirements of the PRNM system. regarding how potential parties to this
The OPRM meets the GDC [General Design The replacement equipment continues to proceeding may request access to
Criteria] 10, ‘‘Reactor Design,’’ and 12, provide information, enforce control rod documents containing SUNSI.
‘‘Suppression of Reactor Power Oscillations,’’ blocks, and initiate reactor scrams under B. Within 10 days after publication of
requirements by automatically detecting and appropriate specified conditions. The power
suppressing design basis thermal hydraulic
this notice of hearing and opportunity to
dependent RBM will continue to prevent rod petition for leave to intervene, any
oscillations to protect specified fuel design withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM
limits. Therefore, the proposed change does rod block setpoint is reached. The MCPR
potential party who believes access to
not involve a significant increase in the [Minimum Critical Power Ratio] and Linear SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
consequences of an accident previously Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) thermal limits notice may request such access. A
evaluated. will be developed on a cycle specific basis ‘‘potential party’’ is any person who
Therefore, the proposed change does not to ensure that fuel thermal mechanical design intends to participate as a party by
involve a significant increase in the bases remain within the licensing limits demonstrating standing and filing an
probability or consequences of an accident during a control rod withdrawal error event admissible contention under 10 CFR
previously evaluated. and to ensure that the MCPR SL [Safety
2. Does the proposed amendment create
2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
Limit] will not be violated as a result of a submitted later than 10 days after
the possibility of a new or different kind of control rod withdrawal error event.
accident from any accident previously The proposed change does not reduce
publication of this notice will not be
evaluated? safety margins. The replacement PRNM considered absent a showing of good
Response: No. equipment has improved channel trip cause for the late filing, addressing why
The components of the PRNM system will accuracy compared to the current analog the request could not have been filed
be supplied to equivalent or better design system, and meets or exceeds system earlier.
and qualification criteria than is currently requirements previously assumed in setpoint C. The requester shall submit a letter
required for the plant. Equipment that could analysis. The power dependent RBM will requesting permission to access SUNSI
be affected by [the] PRNM system has been support cycle specific RWE analysis ensuring to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
evaluated. No new operating mode, safety- fuel limits are not exceeded. Thus, the ability
related equipment lineup, accident scenario, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
of the new equipment to enforce compliance
or system interaction mode was identified. Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
with margins of safety equals or exceeds the
Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will ability of the equipment which it replaces. Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
not adversely affect plant equipment. Therefore, the proposed change does not and provide a copy to the Associate
The new PRNM system uses digital involve a significant reduction in a margin of General Counsel for Hearings,
equipment that has software controlled safety. Enforcement and Administration, Office
digital processing points and software of the General Counsel, Washington, DC
controlled digital processing compared to the The NRC staff has reviewed the 20555–0001. The expedited delivery or
existing PRNM system that uses mostly licensee’s analysis and, based on this courier mail address for both offices is:
analog and discrete component processing review, it appears that the three
(excluding the existing OPRM). Specific U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
failures of hardware and potential software
common cause failures are different from the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Maryland 20852. The email address for
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

existing system. The effects of potential proposes to determine that the the Office of the Secretary and the
software common cause failure are mitigated amendment request involves no Office of the General Counsel are
by specific hardware design and system significant hazards consideration. Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and
architecture as discussed in Section 6.0 of the Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1
NUMAC PRNM LTR [Licensing Topical PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
Report], and supported by a plant specific
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038. 1 While a request for hearing or petition to
evaluation. The transition from a flow-biased intervene in this proceeding must comply with the
RBM to a power dependent RBM does not NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’
change its function to provide a control rod Broaddus. the initial request to access SUNSI under these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36609

The request must include the following disclosure of SUNSI by each individual challenge an NRC staff determination
information: who will be granted access to SUNSI. granting access to SUNSI whose release
(1) A description of the licensing F. Filing of Contentions. Any would harm that party’s interest
action with a citation to this Federal contentions in these proceedings that independent of the proceeding. Such a
Register notice; are based upon the information received challenge must be filed with the Chief
(2) The name and address of the as a result of the request made for Administrative Judge within 5 days of
potential party and a description of the SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no the notification by the NRC staff of its
potential party’s particularized interest later than 25 days after the requestor is grant of access.
that could be harmed by the action granted access to that information. If challenges to the NRC staff
identified in C.(1); and However, if more than 25 days remain
(3) The identity of the individual or determinations are filed, these
between the date the petitioner is procedures give way to the normal
entity requesting access to SUNSI and granted access to the information and
the requester’s basis for the need for the process for litigating disputes
the deadline for filing all other concerning access to information. The
information in order to meaningfully contentions (as established in the notice
participate in this adjudicatory availability of interlocutory review by
of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the Commission of orders ruling on
proceeding. In particular, the request the petitioner may file its SUNSI
must explain why publicly-available such NRC staff determinations (whether
contentions by that later deadline. This granting or denying access) is governed
versions of the information requested provision does not extend the time for
would not be sufficient to provide the by 10 CFR 2.311.3
filing a request for a hearing and
basis and specificity for a proffered petition to intervene, which must I. The Commission expects that the
contention. comply with the requirements of 10 CFR NRC staff and presiding officers (and
D. Based on an evaluation of the any other reviewing officers) will
2.309.
information submitted under paragraph consider and resolve requests for access
G. Review of Denials of Access.
C.(3) the NRC staff will determine to SUNSI, and motions for protective
within 10 days of receipt of the request (1) If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff after a orders, in a timely fashion in order to
whether: minimize any unnecessary delays in
(1) There is a reasonable basis to determination on standing and need for
access, the NRC staff shall immediately identifying those petitioners who have
believe the petitioner is likely to standing and who have propounded
establish standing to participate in this notify the requestor in writing, briefly
stating the reason or reasons for the contentions meeting the specificity and
NRC proceeding; and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
(2) The requestor has established a denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes
legitimate need for access to SUNSI. the general target schedule for
E. If the NRC staff determines that the NRC staff’s adverse determination by
filing a challenge within 5 days of processing and resolving requests under
requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2)
receipt of that determination with: (a) these procedures.
above, the NRC staff will notify the
requestor in writing that access to The presiding officer designated in this It is so ordered.
SUNSI has been granted. The written proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
notification will contain instructions on has been appointed, the Chief of May, 2016.
how the requestor may obtain copies of Administrative Judge, or if he or she is For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
the requested documents, and any other unavailable, another administrative Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
conditions that may apply to access to judge, or an administrative law judge Secretary of the Commission.
those documents. These conditions may with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
include, but are not limited to, the 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has ATTACHMENT 1—General Target
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement been designated to rule on information Schedule for Processing and Resolving
or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting access issues. Requests for Access to Sensitive
forth terms and conditions to prevent H. Review of Grants of Access. A Unclassified Non-Safeguards
the unauthorized or inadvertent party other than the requester may 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 in-
structions for access requests.
10 ...................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order
for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60 ...................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formu-
lation does not require access to SUNSI (+ 25 Answers to petition for intervention; + 7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20 ...................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for
access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also in-
forms any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the in-
formation.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document proc-
essing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

procedures should be submitted as described in this Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC
paragraph. yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline staff determinations (because they must be served
2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non- for the receipt of the written access request. on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
Disclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 3 Requesters should note that the filing applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

36610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices

Day Event/Activity

25 ...................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
30 ...................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40 ...................... (Receipt + 30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing
and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protec-
tive order.
A + 28 ............... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
A + 53 ............... (Contention receipt + 25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60 ............... (Answer receipt + 7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
>A + 60 ............. Decision on contention admission.

[FR Doc. 2016–12484 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] (Contact: Kristin Davis: 301–287– reasonable accommodation will be
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 0707). made on a case-by-case basis.
This meeting will be webcast live at * * * * *
the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. Members of the public may request to
NUCLEAR REGULATORY receive this information electronically.
COMMISSION Week of July 4, 2016—Tentative If you would like to be added to the
Thursday, July 7, 2016 distribution, please contact the Nuclear
[NRC–2016–0001] Regulatory Commission, Office of the
9:30 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Overview of the Reactors Operating 415–1969), or email
Business Line (Public Meeting); Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or
DATES: June, 6, 13, 20, 27, July 4, 11, (Contact: Trent Wertz: 301–415– Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
2016. 1568). Dated: June 2, 2016.
PLACE:Commissioners’ Conference Week of July 11, 2016—Tentative Denise L. McGovern,
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
Maryland. There are no meetings scheduled for
[FR Doc. 2016–13563 Filed 6–3–16; 4:15 pm]
STATUS: Public and Closed. the week of July 11, 2016.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
* * * * *
Week of June 6, 2016
The schedule for Commission
There are no meetings scheduled for meetings is subject to change on short NUCLEAR REGULATORY
the week of June 6, 2016. notice. For more information or to verify COMMISSION
Week of June 13, 2016—Tentative the status of meetings, contact Denise
McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email [NRC–2016–0097]
There are no meetings scheduled for at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov.
the week of June 13, 2016. Consequential SGTR Analysis for
* * * * * Westinghouse and Combustion
Week of June 20, 2016—Tentative The NRC Commission Meeting Engineering Plants With Thermally-
Monday, June 20, 2016 Schedule can be found on the Internet Treated Alloy 600 and 690 Steam
at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ Generator Tubes
9:00 a.m. Meeting with Department of public-meetings/schedule.html.
Energy Office of Nuclear Energy AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
* * * * * Commission.
(Public Meeting); (Contact: Albert
The NRC provides reasonable ACTION: Draft NUREG; request for
Wong: 301–415–3081).
accommodation to individuals with comment.
This meeting will be webcast live at disabilities where appropriate. If you
the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. need a reasonable accommodation to SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Thursday, June 23, 2016 participate in these public meetings, or Commission (NRC) is issuing for public
need this meeting notice or the comment a draft NUREG, NUREG–2195,
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

9:00 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues transcript or other information from the ‘‘Consequential SGTR Analysis for
(Closed Ex. 3). public meetings in another format (e.g. Westinghouse and Combustion
Week of June 27, 2016—Tentative braille, large print), please notify Engineering Plants with Thermally
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Treated Alloy 600 and 690 Steam
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by Generator Tubes.’’ This report
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital videophone at 240–428–3217, or by summarizes severe accident-induced
and Equal Opportunity email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@ consequential steam generator tube
Employment (Public Meeting); nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for rupture (C–SGTR) analyses recently

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:31:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:31:40

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
Dates		Comments must be filed by July 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 8, 2016. Any potential party as defined in Sec. 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by June 17, 2016.
Contact		Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 36601