38234 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–454, 50–455, 50–456, and 

50–457; NRC–2009–0331] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing and 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for 

Contention Preparation 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

37 and NPF–66 issued to Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) 

for operation of the Byron Station, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, located in Ogle County, 

Illinois and to Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–72 and NPF–77 

issued to the licensee for operation of 

the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

located in Will County, Illinois. 

The proposed amendment would 

permanently revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Program,’’ to exclude 

portions of the tube below the top of the 

SG tubesheet from periodic SG tube 

inspections and plugging or repair. In 

addition, this amendment proposes to 

revise the wording of reporting 

requirements in TS 5.6.9, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Inspection Report.’’ 

The amendment application dated June 

24, 2009, contains sensitive unclassified 

non-safeguards information (SUNSI). 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 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. 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 previously analyzed accidents are 

initiated by the failure of plant structures, 

systems, or components. The proposed 

change that alters the steam generator (SG) 

inspection and reporting criteria does not 

have a detrimental impact on the integrity of 

any plant structure, system, or component 

that initiates an analyzed event. The 

proposed change will not alter the operation 

of, or otherwise increase the failure 

probability of any plant equipment that 

initiates an analyzed accident. 

Of the various accidents previously 

evaluated, the proposed changes only affect 

the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), 

postulated steam line break (SLB), feedwater 

line break (FLB), locked rotor and control rod 

ejection accident evaluations. Loss-of-coolant 

accident (LOCA) conditions cause a 

compressive axial load to act on the tube. 

Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the 

tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, 

it is not a factor in this amendment request. 

Another faulted load consideration is a safe 

shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the 

seismic analysis of Model D5 SGs has shown 

that axial loading of the tubes is negligible 

during an SSE. 

During the SGTR event, the required 

structural integrity margins of the SG tubes 

and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H* 

distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in 

tubes with cracks within the tubesheet is 

precluded by the constraint provided by the 

presence of the tubesheet and the tube-totubesheet joint. Tube burst cannot occur 

within the thickness of the tubesheet. The 

tube-to-tubesheet joint constraint results from 

the hydraulic expansion process, thermal 

expansion mismatch between the tube and 

tubesheet, and from the differential pressure 

between the primary and secondary side, and 

tubesheet rotation. Based on this design, the 

structural margins against burst, as discussed 

in draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases 

for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator 

Tubes,’’ and TS 5.5.9, are maintained for both 

normal and postulated accident conditions. 

The proposed change has no impact on the 

structural or leakage integrity of the portion 

of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The 

proposed change maintains structural and 

leakage integrity of the SG tubes consistent 

with the performance criteria of TS 5.5.9. 

Therefore, the proposed change results in no 

significant increase in the probability of the 

occurrence of a SGTR accident. 

At normal operating pressures, leakage 

from tube degradation below the proposed 

limited inspection depth is limited by the 

tube-to-tubesheet crevice. Consequently, 

negligible normal operating leakage is 

expected from degradation below the 

inspected depth within the tubesheet region. 

The consequences of an SGTR event are not 

affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage 

flow during the event as primary-tosecondary leakage flow through a postulated 

tube that has been pulled out of the tubesheet 

is essentially equivalent to a severed tube. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in a significant increase in the 

consequences of a SGTR. 

Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube 

degradation in the tubesheet area during 

operating and accident conditions is 

restricted due to contact of the tube with the 

tubesheet. The leakage is modeled as flow 

through a porous medium through the use of 

the Darcy equation. The leakage model is 

used to develop a relationship between 

operational leakage and leakage at accident 

conditions that is based on differential 

pressure across the tubesheet and the 

viscosity of the fluid. A leak rate ratio was 

developed to relate the leakage at operating 

conditions to leakage at accident conditions. 

Since the fluid viscosity is based on fluid 

temperature and it is shown that for the most 

limiting accident, the fluid temperature does 

not exceed the normal operating temperature 

and therefore the viscosity ratio is assumed 

to be 1.0. Therefore, the leak rate ratio is a 

function of the ratio of the accident 

differential pressure and the normal 

operating differential pressure. 

The leakage factor of 1.93 for Braidwood 

Station Unit 2 and Byron Station Unit 2, for 

a postulated SLB/FLB, has been calculated as 

shown in Table 9–7 of WCAP–17072–P. 

However, EGC Braidwood Station Unit 2 and 

Byron Station Unit 2 will apply a factor of 

2.03 to the normal operating leakage 

associated with the tubesheet expansion 

region in the condition monitoring (CM) and 

operational assessment (OA). The leakage 

factor of 2.03 is a bounding value for all SG 

model designs, both hot and cold legs, in 

Table 9–7 of WCAP–17072–P. Through 

application of the limited tubesheet 

inspection scope, the existing operating 

leakage limit provides assurance that 

excessive leakage (i.e., greater than accident 

analysis assumptions) will not occur. The 

assumed accident induced leak rate limit is 

0.5 gallons per minute at room temperature 

(gpmRT) for the faulted SG and 0.218 gpmRT 

for the unfaulted SGs for accidents that 

assume a faulted SG. These accidents are the 

SLB and the locked rotor with a stuck open 

PORV. The assumed accident induced leak 

rate limit for accidents that do not assume a 

faulted SG is 1.0 gpmRT for all SGs. These 

accidents are the locked rotor and control rod 

ejection. 

No leakage factor will be applied to the 

locked rotor or control rod ejection transients 

due to their short duration, since the 

calculated leak rate ratio is less than 1.0. 

The TS 3.4.13 operational leak rate limit is 

150 gallons per day (gpd) (0.104 gpmRT) 

through any one SG. Consequently, there is 

sufficient margin between accident leakage 

and allowable operational leakage. The 

maximum accident leak rate ratio for the 

Model D5 design SGs is 1.93 as indicated in 

WCAP–17072–P Table 9–7. However, EGC 

will use the more conservative value of 2.03 

accident leak rate ratio for the most limiting 

SG model design identified in WCAP–17072– 

P Table 9–7. This results in significant 

margin between the conservatively estimated 

accident leakage and the allowable accident 

leakage (0.5 gpmRT). 

For the CM assessment, the component of 

leakage from the prior cycle from below the 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 38235 

H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 

2.03 and added to the total leakage from any 

other source and compared to the allowable 

accident induced leakage limit. For the OA, 

the difference in the leakage between the 

allowable leakage and the accident induced 

leakage from sources other than the tubesheet 

expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and 

compared to the observed operational 

leakage. 

Based on the above, the performance 

criteria of NEI–97–06, Revision 2, and draft 

RG 1.121 continue to be met and the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of the applicable accidents 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any changes or mechanisms that create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected 

to be maintained for all plant conditions 

upon implementation of the permanent 

alternate repair criteria. The proposed change 

does not introduce any new equipment or 

any change to existing equipment. No new 

effects on existing equipment are created nor 

are any new malfunctions introduced. 

Therefore, based on the above evaluation, 

the proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change defines the safety 

significant portion of the SG tube that must 

be inspected and repaired. WCAP–17072–P 

identifies the specific inspection depth below 

which any type tube degradation has no 

impact on the performance criteria in NEI 

97–06, Revision 2, ‘‘Steam Generator Program 

Guidelines.’’ 

The proposed change that alters the SG 

inspection and reporting criteria maintains 

the required structural margins of the SG 

tubes for both normal and accident 

conditions. NEI 97–06, and draft RG 1.121 

are used as the bases in the development of 

the limited tubesheet inspection depth 

methodology for determining that SG tube 

integrity considerations are maintained 

within acceptable limits. Draft RG 1.121 

describes a method acceptable to the NRC for 

meeting General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, 

‘‘Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,’’ GDC 

15, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System Design,’’ GDC 

31, ‘‘Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant 

Pressure Boundary,’’ and GDC 32, 

‘‘Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure 

Boundary,’’ by reducing the probability and 

consequences of a SGTR. Draft RG 1.121 

concludes that by determining the limiting 

safe conditions for tube wall degradation, the 

probability and consequences of a SGTR are 

reduced. This draft RG uses safety factors on 

loads for tube burst that are consistent with 

the requirements of Section III of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Code. 

For axially oriented cracking located 

within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded 

due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 

circumferentially oriented cracking, WCAP– 

17072–P defines a length of degradation-free 

expanded tubing that provides the necessary 

resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure 

induced forces, with applicable safety factors 

applied. Application of the limited hot and 

cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will 

preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary 

leakage during all plant conditions. The 

methodology for determining leakage as 

described in WCAP–17072–P shows that 

significant margin exists between an 

acceptable level of leakage during normal 

operating conditions that ensures meeting the 

SLB accident-induced leakage assumption 

and the TS leakage limit of 150 gpd. 

Based on the above, it is concluded that the 

proposed changes do not result in any 

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. 

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 in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. 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. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, TWB–05–B01M, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, and should cite the 

publication date and page number of 

this Federal Register notice. Written 

comments may also be faxed to the 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives 

Branch at 301–492–3446. Documents 

may be examined, and/or copied for a 

fee, at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. 

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. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

’’Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, 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 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
38236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor must 

also provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. 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 petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor 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. 

If a hearing is requested, 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, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

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 E-Filing rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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 ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor should contact the 

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling 

301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 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/or (2) 

creation of an electronic docket for the 

proceeding (even in instances in which 

the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel 

or representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it 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 public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE 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 e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC 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 agency’s adjudicatory e-filing system 

may seek assistance through the 

‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the 

NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is 

available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

Meta-System Help Desk can be 

contacted by telephone at 1–866–672– 

7640 or by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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 firstclass 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. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the Presiding Officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the request and/or petition should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 38237 

1See footnote 4. 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. 

2 If a presiding officer has not yet been 

designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will 

issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer 

to do so. 

3Parties/persons other than the requester and the 

NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a 

favorable access determination (and may participate 

in the development of such a motion and protective 

order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person’s 

interest independent of the proceeding would be 

harmed by the release of the information (e.g., as 

with proprietary information). 

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. 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 

submissions. 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment dated June 

24, 2009, which is available for public 

inspection at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, File 

Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Attorney for Licensee: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for 

Contention Preparation 

1. This order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing sensitive 

unclassified information. 

2. Within ten (10) days after 

publication of this notice of opportunity 

for hearing any potential party as 

defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes 

access to SUNSI is necessary for a 

response to the notice may request 

access to such information. A ‘‘potential 

party’’ is any person who intends or 

may intend to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and the filing of 

an admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests submitted later than ten 

(10) days will not be considered absent 

a showing of good cause for the late 

filing, addressing why the request could 

not have been filed earlier. 

3. 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, MD 

20852. The e-mail address for the Office 

of the Secretary and the Office of the 

General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, 

respectively.1 The request must include 

the following information: 

a. A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice of opportunity for 

hearing; 

b. The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the licensing 

action; 

c. The identity of the individual 

requesting access to SUNSI and the 

requester’s need for the information in 

order to meaningfully participate in this 

adjudicatory proceeding, particularly 

why publicly available versions of the 

application would not be sufficient to 

provide the basis and specificity for a 

proffered contention; 

4. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under items 2 

and 3.a through 3.c, above, the NRC staff 

will determine within ten days of 

receipt of the written access 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) there is a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

5. A request for access to SUNSI will 

be granted if: 

a. The request has demonstrated that 

there is a reasonable basis to believe that 

a potential party is likely to establish 

standing to intervene or to otherwise 

participate as a party in this proceeding; 

b. The proposed recipient of the 

information has demonstrated a need for 

SUNSI; 

c. The proposed recipient of the 

information has executed a NonDisclosure Agreement or Affidavit and 

agrees to be bound by the terms of a 

Protective Order setting forth terms and 

conditions to prevent the unauthorized 

or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI; and 

d. The presiding officer has issued a 

protective order concerning the 

information or documents requested.2

Any protective order issued shall 

provide that the petitioner must file 

SUNSI contentions 25 days after receipt 

of (or access to) that information. 

However, if more than 25 days remain 

between the petitioner’s receipt of (or 

access to) the information and the 

deadline for filing all other contentions 

(as established in the notice of hearing 

or opportunity for hearing), the 

petitioner may file its SUNSI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

6. If the request for access to SUNSI 

is granted, the terms and conditions for 

access to such information will be set 

forth in a draft protective order and 

affidavit of non-disclosure appended to 

a joint motion by the NRC staff, any 

other affected parties to this 

proceeding,3 and the petitioner(s). If the 

diligent efforts by the relevant parties or 

petitioner(s) fail to result in an 

agreement on the terms and conditions 

for a draft protective order or nondisclosure affidavit, the relevant parties 

to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) 

should notify the presiding officer 

within five (5) days, describing the 

obstacles to the agreement. 

7. If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff, the NRC staff 

shall briefly state the reasons for the 

denial. The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination with 

respect to access to SUNSI (including 

with respect to standing) by filing a 

challenge within five (5) days of receipt 

of that determination with (a) the 

presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

In the same manner, 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 within five (5) days of the 

notification by the NRC staff of its grant 

of such a request. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
38238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 

4As of October 15, 2007, the NRC’s final ‘‘EFiling Rule’’ became effective. See Use of Electronic 

Submissions in Agency Hearings (August 28, 2007; 

72 FR 49139). Requesters should note that the filing 

requirements of that rule 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 requests 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

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 2.311.4

8. 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. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of July 2009. 

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 (SUNSI) in This 

Proceeding 

Day Event 

0 ........................................... Publication of Federal Register notice, including order with instructions for access requests. 

10 ......................................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI with information: supporting the standing of a potential 

party identified by name and address; and describing the need for the information in order for the potential 

party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

20 ......................................... NRC staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable 

basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. NRC staff also informs any party to 

the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information. If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document 

processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ......................................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI or 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. 

60 ......................................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose 

formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor 

reply). 

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. 

B ........................................... Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. E9–18367 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2008–0608] 

Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, 

Availability 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance and 

Availability of Draft Regulatory Guide, 

DG–4015, Preparation of Environmental 

Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License 

Renewal Applications. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Davis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 415–3835 or email to Jennifer.Davis@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public such information 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the NRC’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

The draft regulatory guide (DG), 

entitled, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental 

Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License 

Renewal Applications,’’ is temporarily 

identified by its task number, DG–4015, 

which should be mentioned in all 

related correspondence. DG–4015 is 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES