Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 50759 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this information: 

(1) Type of information collection: 

Reinstatement, with change, of a 

previously approved collection for 

which approval has expired. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) to the 

National Crime Victimization Survey. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

department sponsoring the collection: 

ITS–1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Office of Justice Programs, Department 

of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract. Primary: The survey will be 

administered to persons 16 years or 

older in NCVS sampled households in 

the United States. The Identity Theft 

Supplement (ITS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey collects, analyzes, 

publishes, and disseminates statistics on 

the prevalence, economic cost, and 

consequences of identity theft on 

victims. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: Approximately 79,400 

persons 16 years of age or older will 

complete an ITS interview. The majority 

of respondents, approximately 75,500, 

will be administered the screening 

portion of the ITS, which is designed to 

filter out those people who have not 

been victims of identity theft, as well as 

a brief section on actions taken to 

reduce the risk of identity theft 

victimization. We estimate the average 

length of the ITS interview for these 

individuals will be 0.05 hours (three 

minutes). Based on findings from the 

2008 ITS, we estimate that 

approximately 5% of respondents will 

have experienced at least one incident 

of identity theft during the prior year. 

For these victims, we estimate each 

interview will take 0.25 hours (15 

minutes) to complete. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total respondent burden 

is approximately 4,766 hours. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 2E–508, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20783 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

National Science Board; Sunshine Act 

Meeting 

The National Science Board’s Task 

Force on Merit Review, pursuant to NSF 

regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the 

National Science Foundation Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 

U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in 

regard to the scheduling of meetings for 

the transaction of National Science 

Board business and other matters 

specified, as follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, August 24, 

2011 at 1 p.m., E.D.T. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Discussion of 

proposed revisions to the draft 

principles and review criteria. 

STATUS: Open. 

This meeting will be held by 

teleconference originating at the 

National Science Board Office, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. A room will be 

available for the public and NSF staff to 

listen-in on this teleconference meeting. 

All visitors must contact the Board 

Office at least one day prior to the 

meeting to arrange for a visitor’s badge 

and obtain the room number. Call 703– 

292–7000 to request your badge, which 

will be ready for pick-up at the visitor’s 

desk on the day of the meeting. All 

visitors must report to the NSF visitor 

desk at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets 

entrance to receive their visitor’s badge 

on the day of the teleconference. 

Please refer to the National Science 

Board Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/

nsb/notices/) for information or 

schedule updates, or contact: Kim 

Silverman, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 

292–7000. 

Ann Ferrante, 

Writer/Editor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20926 Filed 8–12–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 

August 30, 2011. 

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20594. 

STATUS: The one item is open to the 

public. 

Matter To Be Considered 

8275C Pipeline Accident Report— 

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline 

Rupture and Fire, San Bruno, 

California, September 9, 2010. 

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 

314–6100. 

The press and public may enter the 

NTSB Conference Center one hour prior 

to the meeting for set up and seating. 

Individuals requesting specific 

accommodations should contact 

Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by 

Friday, August 26, 2011. 

The public may view the meeting via 

a live or archived webcast by accessing 

a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the 

NTSB home page at http:// 

www.ntsb.gov. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi 

Bing, (202) 314–6403 or by e-mail at 

bingc@ntsb.gov. 

Dated: August 12, 2011. 

Candi R. Bing, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21014 Filed 8–12–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0174] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating 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: Notice of license amendment 

request, opportunity to comment, 

opportunity to request a hearing. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 15, 2011. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by October 17, 

2011. Any potential party as defined in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
50760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 

Regulations (10 CFR), 2.4 who believes 

access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) is 

necessary to respond to this notice must 

request document access by August 26, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0174 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You may submit comments by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0174. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail: 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

• Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 

492–3446. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

• NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR): The public may examine, and 

have copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): 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. 

From this page, the public can gain 

entry into ADAMS, which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: 

Public comments and supporting 

materials related to this notice can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching on Docket ID: NRC–2011– 

0174. 

Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission, NRC, or 

NRC staff) 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 

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 SUNSI. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

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; (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 in an 

emergency situation, 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. 

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 NRC’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC 

regulations are accessible electronically 

from the NRC Library on the NRC 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 50761 

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. 

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. 

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 

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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 e-mail 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 NRCissued 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/ 

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal 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/esubmittals.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 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/esubmittals.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 the NRC 

guidance available on the NRC public 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
50762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at 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. 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. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

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 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(EGC), Docket No. 50–254, Quad Cities 

Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Unit 1, 

Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 7, 

2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment revises the value of the 

single recirculation loop operation 

(SLO) safety limit minimum critical 

power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical 

Specifications Section 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor 

Core SLs [Safety Limits].’’ Specifically, 

the proposed change would replace the 

current SLO SLMCPR requirement for 

QCNPS Unit 1 with a new SLMCPR 

requirement. This proposed change does 

not affect the QCNPS Unit 1 two 

recirculation loop operation SLMCPR or 

either of the SLMCPR values for Unit 2. 

This change is needed to support the 

next cycle of operation (i.e., Cycle 22) 

for QCNPS Unit 1 for cycle exposure 

greater than 4000 MWd/MT, which is 

currently scheduled to occur in 

November 2011. 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The probability of an evaluated accident is 

derived from the probabilities of the 

individual precursors to that accident. The 

consequences of an evaluated accident are 

determined by the operability of plant 

systems designed to mitigate those 

consequences. Limits have been established 

consistent with NRC-approved methods to 

ensure that fuel performance during normal, 

transient, and accident conditions is 

acceptable. The proposed change to revise 

the QCNPS Unit 1 SLO SLMCPR requirement 

conservatively establishes the SLMCPR at the 

value for a core of all SVEA–96 Optimal fuel, 

such that the fuel is protected during normal 

operation and during plant transients or 

anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). 

The proposed SLMCPR value for QCNPS 

Unit 1 does not increase the probability of an 

evaluated accident. The change does not 

require any physical plant modifications, 

physically affect any plant components, or 

entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, 

no individual precursors of an accident are 

affected. 

The proposed change revises the SLO 

SLMCPR value for QCNPS Unit 1 to protect 

the fuel during normal operation as well as 

during plant transients or AOOs. Operational 

limits will be established based on the 

proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the 

SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure 

that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that 

at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not 

experience transition boiling during normal 

operation and AOOs) is met. Since the 

proposed change does not affect operability 

of plant systems designed to mitigate any 

consequences of accidents, the consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated will not 

increase. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Creation of the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident requires creating 

one or more new accident precursors. New 

accident precursors may be created by 

modifications of plant configuration, 

including changes in allowable modes of 

operation. The proposed changes do not 

involve any plant configuration 

modifications or changes to allowable modes 

of operation. The proposed SLMCPR value 

does not result in the creation of any new 

precursors to an accident. The proposed 

change to revise the QCNPS Unit 1 SLO 

SLMCPR requirement assures that safety 

criteria are maintained for QCNPS Unit 1, 

Cycle 22. 

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. 

The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety 

by ensuring that at least 99.9 percent of the 

fuel rods do not experience transition boiling 

during normal operation and AOOs if the 

SLMCPR limit is not violated. The proposed 

change will ensure the current level of fuel 

protection is maintained by continuing to 

ensure that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel 

rods do not experience transition boiling 

during normal operation and AOOs if the 

SLMCPR limit is not violated. The proposed 

SLMCPR value was developed using NRCapproved methods. Additionally, operational 

limits will be established based on the 

proposed SLMCPR value to ensure that the 

SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure 

that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that 

no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are 

expected to be in boiling transition if the 

MCPR limit is not violated) is met. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 50763 

Based upon the above, EGC concludes that 

the proposed amendment presents no 

significant hazards consideration under the 

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 

accordingly, a finding of no significant 

hazards consideration is justified. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

requested amendment involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. 

Zimmerman. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456, STN 50–457, 

STN 50–454, STN 50–455, Braidwood 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, 

Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 

2, Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: March 

14, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendment 

would revise Technical Specifications 

(TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System (RTS) 

Instrumentation,’’ and TS 3.3.2, 

‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.’’ The 

proposed change reflects the installation 

of bypass test capability. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Reactor Protection System (RPS) and 

Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 

(ESFAS) provide plant protection and are 

part of the accident mitigation response. The 

RTS and ESFAS functions do not themselves 

act as a precursor or an initiator for any 

transient or design basis accident. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not significantly 

increase the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility. The structural 

and functional integrity of the RTS and 

ESFAS, or any other plant system, is 

unaffected. The proposed change does not 

alter or prevent the ability of structures, 

systems, and components from performing 

their intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. Surveillance 

testing in the bypass condition will not cause 

any design or analysis acceptance criteria to 

be exceeded. 

Under the proposed change, the channel 

being tested may be bypassed. The number 

of available channels with one channel in 

bypass for testing will remain the same as the 

number of channels available when testing in 

trip. The number of channels to trip will be 

unchanged when testing in bypass while the 

number of channels to trip is reduced to one 

when testing in trip. Although there may be 

as light increase in the possibility that the 

failure of a channel could prevent the 

actuation of a function (because testing in 

bypass could result in two-out-of-two logic 

while testing in trip would have resulted in 

one-out-of-two logic), testing in bypass will 

reduce the vulnerability to inadvertent 

actuation of a function while maintaining the 

required number of channels to trip. The 

impact of using bypass test capability upon 

nuclear safety has been previously evaluated 

by the NRC and determined to be acceptable 

in WCAPs 14333–P–A, Revision 1, 15376–P– 

A, Revision 1, and 10271–P–A, Revision 1. 

Thus, testing in bypass when all channels are 

operable does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

Under the proposed change, the channel 

being tested may be bypassed when another 

channel is concurrently inoperable and in a 

tripped condition. As a result, with one 

channel in bypass and another in trip leaves 

one-out-of-two operable channels to initiate 

the protective function (if the initial logic is 

two-out-of-four) or one-out-of-one operable 

channels to initiate the protective function (if 

the initial logic was two-out-of-three). Thus, 

testing in bypass with one channel 

inoperable does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

Implementation of the bypass testing 

capability does not affect the integrity of the 

fission product barriers utilized for 

mitigation of radiological dose consequences 

as a result of an accident. Plant response as 

modeled in the safety analyses is unaffected. 

Hence, the releases used as input to the dose 

calculations are unchanged from those 

previously assumed. 

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. 

Surveillance testing in bypass does not 

affect accident initiation sequences or 

response scenarios as modeled in the safety 

analyses. No new operating configuration is 

being imposed by the surveillance testing in 

bypass that would create a new failure 

scenario. The RTS and ESFAS will continue 

to have the same setpoints after the proposed 

change is implemented. In addition, no new 

failure modes are being created for any plant 

equipment. The bypass test instrumentation 

has been designed to applicable regulatory 

and industry standards. Fault conditions, 

failure detection, reliability and equipment 

qualification have been considered. The 

changes do not result in the creation of any 

change to existing accident scenarios nor 

does it create any new or different accident 

scenarios. The types of accidents defined in 

the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 

UFSAR continue to represent the credible 

spectrum of events to be analyzed which 

determine safe plant operation. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

No safety analyses were changed or 

modified as a result of the proposed TS 

change to reflect installed bypass test 

capability. The proposed change does not 

alter the manner in which safety limits, 

limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting 

conditions for operation are determined. 

Margins associated with the current safety 

analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. 

The current safety analyses remain bounding 

since their conclusions are not affected by 

performing surveillance testing in bypass. 

The safety systems credited in the safety 

analyses will continue to be available to 

perform their mitigation functions. 

Implementation of testing in bypass results 

in an overall improvement in safety because 

the capability to test in bypass for the analog 

channels will promote improved 

maintenance practices that will provide a 

resultant reduction in the number of spurious 

reactor trips and spurious actuation of safety 

equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in 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: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, VP & Deputy General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. 

Zimmerman. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 

1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: April 18, 

2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

change would revise Technical 

Specifications for the Engineered Safety 

Feature Actuation System 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
50764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 

Instrumentation to allow the 

surveillance frequency for the 

Westinghouse-type AR relays that are 

used as Solid State Protection System 

(SSPS) slave relays or auxiliary relays to 

be expanded from quarterly to every 18 

months or refueling. Westinghouse 

Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) 

Topical Report WCAP–13877–P–A 

Revision 2, dated August 2000, 

‘‘Reliability Assessment of 

Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as 

SSPS Slave Relays,’’ provides the details 

and results that support the increased 

surveillance interval. 

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 change to the Technical Specifications 

does not result in a condition where the 

design, material, and construction standards 

that are applicable to slave relays has been 

changed or degraded. The change is to 

increase the allowable surveillance to a less 

impacting 18 month interval. The standard 

for Westinghouse Plants specifically required 

quarterly testing of slave relays in the Solid 

State Protection System (SSPS) 

instrumentation that initiates proper unit 

shutdown or engineered safety feature. The 

Solid State Protective System (SSPS) actuates 

the Engineered Safety Features Actuation 

Systems (ESFAS). Current surveillance 

requirements involve testing the relays at 

power, with the attendant risk of inadvertent 

actuation of the engineered safety features. In 

addition, the on-line testing of slave relays 

required plant manipulation, abnormal 

configurations, and removed from service 

various equipment making it unavailable to 

perform its intended safety function. Generic 

Letter 93–05, ‘‘Line-Item Technical 

Specifications Improvements to Reduce 

Surveillance Requirements for Testing 

During Power Operation’’ identified that 

relay testing could be performed on a 

‘‘staggered test basis over a cycle and leave 

the tests carrying highest risk to a refueling 

outage or other cold shutdown.’’ 

The SSPS can initiate safeguard functions 

to maintain the reactor plant in a safe 

shutdown condition. Safeguard actuation 

occurs when a train of logic senses the need 

for any of the particular safeguards actions. 

Safeguard actuation is determined by the 

SSPS in the same way as the need for a 

reactor trip. When the required logic is 

present, one or more master relays are 

energized. Each master relay typically has 

several slave relays energized by the master 

relay. The slave relays operate the contacts 

necessary to open and close valves, shift 

control room air ventilation line ups, start 

diesel generators, etc. Each safeguards train 

actuates a physically and electrically separate 

train of pumps and valves, with a dedicated 

diesel generator for electrical power. Failure 

of one component of a train (or the entire 

train) does not prevent sufficient action by 

the other train. The SSPS actuated functions 

are: Safety Injection (causes a reactor trip, 

various pumps and coolers to start, and 

various valves to open and close), 

Containment Isolation (closes valves to 

isolate the Reactor Building interior from the 

environment), Steam isolation (close all three 

main steam isolation valves), and Reactor 

Building Spray (each train provides flow). 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

(Westinghouse) topical report WCAP–13877– 

P–A Rev 2, dated August 2000, ‘‘Reliability 

Assessment of Westinghouse Type AR Relays 

Used as SSPS Slave Relays’’ provides the 

details and results that support the increased 

surveillance interval. The same ESFAS 

instrumentation is being used and the same 

ESFAS system reliability is expected. The 

proposed change will not modify any system 

interface or function; therefore, will not 

increase the likelihood of an accident. The 

proposed activity will not change, degrade or 

prevent the performance of any accident 

mitigation systems or alter any assumptions 

previously made in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of an accident 

described in the FSAR. Therefore, the 

proposed amendment does not result in any 

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. 

Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. Increasing the 

surveillance interval does not alter the 

performance of the ESFAS mitigation 

systems assumed in the plant safety analysis 

nor will it create any new accident initiators 

or scenarios. Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report 

WCAP–13877–P–A Rev 2, dated August 

2000, ‘‘Reliability Assessment of 

Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS 

Slave Relays’’ provides the details and results 

that support the increased surveillance 

interval. Current surveillance requirements 

involve testing the relays at power, with the 

attendant risk of inadvertent actuation of the 

engineered safety features. In addition, the 

on-line testing of slave relays required plant 

manipulation, abnormal configurations, and 

removed from service various equipment 

making it unavailable to perform its intended 

safety function. Generic Letter 93–05, ‘‘LineItem Technical Specifications Improvements 

to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for 

Testing During Power Operation’’ identified 

that relay testing could be performed on a 

‘‘staggered test basis over a cycle and leave 

the tests carrying highest risk to a refueling 

outage or other cold shutdown.’’ Each 

safeguards train actuates a physically and 

electrically separate train of pumps and 

valves with a dedicated diesel generator for 

electrical power. Failure of one component of 

a train (or the entire train) does not prevent 

sufficient action by the other train. The SSPS 

actuated functions are: Safety Injection 

(causes a reactor trip, various pumps and 

coolers to start, and various valves to open 

and close), Containment Isolation (closes 

valves to isolate the Reactor Building interior 

from the environment), Steam isolation (close 

all three main steam isolation valves), and 

Reactor Building spray (Each train provides 

flow). The current SSPS functions are a 

potential challenge to the plant when tested 

at power, in that isolation or activation of 

major components place the unit in an 

unfavorable conditions that are corrected by 

initiating Abnormal Operating Procedures. 

The change will increase the allowable 

surveillance to a less impacting 18 month 

interval therefore allowing testing to be 

completed during a time period where 

activation would have less of an effect on 

operation. Implementation of the proposed 

amendment does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident 

previously evaluated within the FSAR [Final 

Safety Analysis Report]. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The change to the Technical Specifications 

increasing the surveillance interval does not 

result or involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse) topical report 

WCAP–13877–P–A Rev 2, dated August 

2000, ‘‘Reliability Assessment of 

Westinghouse Type AR Relays Used as SSPS 

Slave Relays’’ provides the details and results 

that support the increased surveillance 

interval. The periodic slave relay functional 

verification should be relaxed because of the 

demonstrated high reliability of the relay and 

its insensitivity to any short term wear or 

aging effects. The current SSPS functions are 

a potential challenge to the plant when 

surveillance tested at power, in that isolation 

or activation of major components places the 

unit in an unfavorable condition that is 

corrected by initiating Abnormal Operating 

Procedures. The change will increase the 

allowable surveillance to a less impacting 18 

month interval therefore allowing testing to 

be completed during a time period where 

activation would have less of an effect on 

operation. Implementation of the proposed 

amendment does not result in a reduction in 

the margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 50765 

1While 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. 

2Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure 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. 

3Requestors 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. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–254, Quad Cities Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456, STN 50–457, 

STN 50–454, STN 50–455, Braidwood 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, 

Illinois, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 

2, Ogle County, Illinois 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 

No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (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 will not be considered 

absent a showing of good cause for the 

late filing, addressing why the request 

could not have been filed earlier. 

C. The requestor shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

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 e-mail address for 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmail

center@nrc.gov, respectively.1 The 

request must include the following 

information: 

(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 requestor’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly-available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention. 

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 

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. 

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. 

G. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff either after 

a determination on standing and need 

for access, or after a determination on 

trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC 

staff shall immediately notify the 

requestor in writing, briefly stating the 

reason or reasons for the denial. 

(2) The requestor 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) if another officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

H. Review of Grants of Access. A party 

other than the requestor may challenge 

an NRC staff determination granting 

access to SUNSI whose release would 

harm that party’s interest independent 

of the proceeding. Such a challenge 

must be filed 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

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
50766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Notices 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of August 2011. 

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; (ii) all contentions whose formulation 

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

20 ................ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access 

provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any 

party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If 

NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation 

of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ................ If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to 

reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party 

to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a 

motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ................ Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ................ (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file 

motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement 

for SUNSI. 

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. 2011–19984 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0184; Docket No. 50–482] 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of 

Application for Amendment to Facility 

Operating License 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) has 

granted the request of Wolf Creek 

Nuclear Operating Corporation (the 

licensee) to withdraw its September 22, 

2010 application, as supplemented by 

letter dated November 22, 2010, for 

proposed amendment to Renewed 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–42 

for the Wolf Creek Generating Station 

(WCGS), located in Coffey County, 

Kansas. 

The proposed amendment would 

have revised the approved fire 

protection program as described in the 

WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report 

(USAR). Specifically, the licensee 

requested approval for a deviation from 

a commitment to certain technical 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.L.1, 

‘‘Alternative and dedicated shutdown 

capability,’’ as described in Appendix 

9.5E of the WCGS USAR. The change 

would have revised USAR Table 9.5E– 

1 to include information on reactor 

coolant system process variables not 

maintained within those predicted for a 

loss of normal AC (alternating current) 

power. 

The Commission had previously 

issued a Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment published in 

the Federal Register on December 28, 

2010 (75 FR 81673). However, by letter 

dated June 30, 2011, the licensee 

withdrew the proposed change. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated September 22, 2010, 

as supplemented by letter dated 

November 22, 2010, and the licensee’s 

letter dated June 30, 2011, which 

withdrew the application for license 

amendment. 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. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (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, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail 

to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of August 2011. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES