31190 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 

Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: February 

2, 2018. 

Description of amendments: The 

amendments authorized the Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company to depart 

from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plantspecific Appendix A, technical 

specifications as incorporated into the 

VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and 

changed to the approved AP1000 Design 

Control Document Tier 2 information as 

incorporated into the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). 

Specifically, the changes to the COLs 

Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the 

core operating limits report 

documentation to remove certain reactor 

trip instrumentation from the list of core 

operating limits and include analytical 

methods mentioned elsewhere in the TS 

and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct 

a typographical error in a description of 

a radiation monitoring device that may 

be used in a high radiation area. The 

changes to the UFSAR Tier 2 Table 1.6– 

1, ‘‘Material Referenced,’’ and Section 

4.3.5, ‘‘References,’’ updated the list of 

references as described in the 

application. 

Date of issuance: May 31, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and 

123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18123A511; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: The amendments 

revised the Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 

10911). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, 

Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: 

September 18, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocated the defined core 

plane regions where the radial peaking 

factor limits are not applicable, called 

radial peaking factor exclusion zones, 

from TS 4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating 

Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also 

revised the COLR Administrative 

Controls TS to add exclusion zones to 

the list of limits found in the COLRs, 

and revised the description of the 

methodology used to determine the 

values for the radial peaking factor 

exclusion zones. In addition, the 

amendment corrected two 

administrative errors. 

Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 

199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18128A342; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 

57475). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

United States Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), Docket No. 50–238, Nuclear 

Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, 

Maryland 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications to establish controls for 

all accesses to the Containment Vessel 

in support of two structural 

modifications. 

Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 16. A publicallyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18109A578. 

Facility Operating License No. NS–1: 

The amendment revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20863). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of June 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tara Inverso, 

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13758 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0116] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License amendment request; 

notice of opportunity to comment, 

request a hearing, and petition for leave 

to intervene; order imposing 

procedures. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) received and is 

considering approval of three 

amendment requests. The amendment 

requests are for Oconee Nuclear Station, 

Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane Arnold 

Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, Unit 

No. 1. For each amendment request, the 

NRC proposes to determine that they 

involve no significant hazards 

consideration. Because each amendment 

request contains sensitive unclassified 

non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an 

order imposes procedures to obtain 

access to SUNSI for contention 

preparation. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by September 3, 2018. Any 

potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) who believes access to SUNSI 

is necessary to respond to this notice 

must request document access by July 

13, 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31191 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0116. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

5411; email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0116, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for 

this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0116. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced is provided the 

first time that it is mentioned in this 

document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0116, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the NRC is publishing this 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission to publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license or combined 

license, as applicable, upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This notice includes notices of 

amendments containing SUNSI. 

III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated, or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

If the Commission takes action prior to 

the expiration of either the comment 

period or the notice period, it will 

publish a notice of issuance in the 

Federal Register. If the Commission 

makes a final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (First floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31192 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition 

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition 

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 

governmental body, or Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The 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. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ 

e-submittals.html. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31193 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

public website at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

on the NRC’s public website at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: October 

20, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17299A125. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendments 

would revise the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) to provide offnominal success criteria for maintaining 

the reactor in a safe shutdown condition 

when using the Standby Shutdown 

Facility (SSF) to mitigate a Turbine 

Building (TB) flood occurring when an 

Oconee Nuclear Station unit is not at 

nominal full power conditions. The 

amendments would also revise the 

UFSAR to allow the use of the Main 

Steam (MS) Atmospheric Dump Valves 

(ADVs), when available, to enhance SSF 

mitigation capabilities. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change provides off-nominal 

success criteria for SSF mitigated TB flood 

events occurring during off-nominal initial 

conditions. The proposed change does not 

impact the current success criteria for SSF 

events occurring during nominal full power 

initial conditions. The LAR [license 

amendment request] also requests NRC 

approval to use the MS ADVs, when 

available, to enhance SSF mitigation 

capabilities. The proposed change does not 

adversely impact containment integrity, 

radiological release pathways, fuel design, 

filtration systems, main steam relief valve set 

points, or radwaste systems. No new 

radiological release pathways are created. 

During licensing of the SSF design, SSF 

performance was evaluated assuming the 

events that were to be mitigated by the SSF 

were initiated from nominal full power 

conditions. Duke Energy analyses 

demonstrate that SSF mitigated Turbine 

Building flood events occurring during offnominal full power conditions can be 

mitigated acceptably when the proposed offnominal success criteria are met. As such, the 

proposed change does not have a significant 

impact on the dose consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. The SSF is 

not an event initiator; therefore, it does not 

affect the frequency of occurrence of 

accidents previously evaluated in the 

UFSAR. The use of off-nominal success 

criteria is not a precursor to a TB flood event; 

therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability of any event requiring operation 

of the SSF. The proposed off-nominal success 

criteria will continue to ensure the SSF can 

maintain the unit(s) in a safe shutdown 

condition. As such, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

consequences of any event requiring 

operation of the SSF. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed UFSAR change requests 

approval to modify the SSF licensing basis 

for off-nominal conditions by using offnominal success criteria for SSF mitigated TB 

flood events occurring during off-nominal 

conditions. Duke Energy analyses 

demonstrate that meeting the off-nominal 

success criteria is an acceptable method of 

mitigating the TB flood event and does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31194 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

kind of accident. The LAR also requests NRC 

approval to use the main steam atmospheric 

dump valves, when available, to enhance the 

mitigation of SSF events. The proposed 

change does not change the design function 

or operation of the SSF. The SSF is designed 

with the capability to mitigate a TB flood and 

meet specific success criteria for the entire 72 

hour mission time. These changes do not 

adversely affect this mission time. 

The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident since the proposed change does not 

introduce credible new failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators not 

considered in the design and licensing bases. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change requests approval of 

an off-nominal set of success criteria for SSF 

mitigated TB flood events occurring during 

off-nominal power conditions. Duke Energy 

analyses demonstrate there is adequate 

margin to prevent lift of pressurizer safety 

valves while water-solid. The proposed 

change does not involve operating installed 

equipment (ADVs) in a new or different 

manner. The ADVs are periodically tested 

and have been used successfully for a plant 

cooldown. Use of the ADVs to enhance the 

mitigation of SSF events serves to improve 

plant safety by preventing the pressurizer 

from reaching water-solid conditions and by 

reducing the pressure at which the MS 

system is controlled. ADV use also allows 

plant stabilization to occur more quickly and 

at lower temperatures, and eliminates 

repeated cycling of the MS relief valves. The 

proposed change does not involve a change 

to any set points for parameters which 

initiate protective or mitigation action and 

does not have any impact on the fission 

product barriers or safety limits. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, 

Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2017. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17352A335. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendment 

would modify Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.6.1.7, ‘‘Suppression Chamber-toDrywell Vacuum Breakers,’’ by revising 

the required number of operable 

vacuum breakers for opening from six to 

five. 

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. 

Operable suppression chamber-to-drywell 

vacuum breakers are required for accident 

mitigation. Failure of the vacuum breakers is 

not assumed as an accident initiator for any 

accident previously evaluated. Therefore, any 

potential failure of a vacuum breaker to 

perform when necessary will not affect the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change maintains a 

sufficient number of operable vacuum 

breakers to meet the limiting design basis 

accident conditions. The consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated while utilizing 

the proposed change are no different than the 

consequences of an accident prior to the 

proposed change. As a result, the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased 

[sic]. 

Therefore, the proposed TS change does 

not involve an increase in the probability or 

consequences of a previously evaluated 

accident. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

protection system design, create new failure 

modes, or change any modes of operation. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant; and no new 

or different kind of equipment will be 

installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the minimum 

number of operable suppression chamber-todrywell vacuum breakers for opening ensures 

that an excessive negative differential 

pressure between the suppression chamber 

and the drywell will be prevented during the 

most limiting postulated design-basis event. 

The minimum number of operable 

suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 

breakers for opening is set appropriately to 

ensure adequate margin based on the number 

of available vacuum breakers not having an 

effect on the containment system analysis 

report. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Blair, 

P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 

33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of amendment request: March 9, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Package Accession No. 

ML18068A685. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendment 

would revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to add TS 3.7.20, 

‘‘Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air 

Conditioning (A/C) System,’’ to the 

Callaway Plant TSs. This proposed 

change would enhance the capability of 

one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C 

train to provide adequate area cooling 

for both trains of Class 1E electrical 

equipment during normal and accident 

conditions. 

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 safety-related Class 1E Electrical 

Equipment A/C system is designed to 

perform its area cooling function for the Class 

1E electrical equipment during normal and 

accident conditions. Since the supported 

Class 1E electrical equipment is utilized and 

required to be available for accident 

mitigation, the Class 1E Electrical Equipment 

A/C system performs an accident mitigation 

function. The system itself, however, is not 

involved in the initiation of accidents 

previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final 

Safety Analysis Report]. That is, failure of the 

Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C system 

itself is not an initiator of such accidents, and 

consequently, the proposed addition of TS 

3.7.20 does not involve an increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31195 

The proposed addition of TS 3.7.20 creates 

an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 

requirement for Operability of both Class 1E 

electrical equipment A/C trains during 

applicable plant conditions. The LCO 

requirement for both trains to be Operable 

provides redundancy and single-failure 

protection, thus maximizing the availability 

of the Class 1E Electrical Equipment A/C 

system function(s). This serves to preserve 

assumptions regarding the Operability and/or 

availability of the Class 1E electrical 

equipment supported by the Class 1E 

Electrical Equipment A/C system. 

In addition to the proposed LCO requiring 

the Operability of both Class 1E electrical 

equipment A/C trains, a Condition and 

associated Required Actions are proposed to 

address the inoperability of one of the Class 

1E electrical equipment A/C trains. The 

proposed Required Action(s) provides for 

more than merely specifying a Completion 

Time for restoring the inoperable train. 

Proposed Actions A.1 and A.2 together 

ensure a continuation of the Class 1E 

electrical equipment cooling function for 

both trains of equipment by requiring 

mitigating actions to be taken and periodic 

verification that room area temperatures 

remain within the specified limit. These 

Required Actions are met through enhanced 

ventilation capability provided by plant 

modifications that enable the remaining 

single Operable Class 1E electrical equipment 

A/C train to provide adequate cooling to the 

areas of both trains of Class 1E electrical 

equipment. This ensures continued area 

cooling during the period of time permitted 

for restoring the inoperable Class 1E 

electrical equipment A/C train. 

The addition of TS 3.7.20 to the plant’s 

Technical Specifications thus supports the 

availability of the Class 1E Electrical 

Equipment A/C cooling function, consistent 

with the assumptions of the plant’s accident 

analysis. This support of the intended 

accident mitigation capability means that the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

In regard to the accident analyses and 

assumed overall protection system 

capability/response, protection system 

performance will remain within the bounds 

of the previously performed accident 

analyses since no hardware changes are being 

made to the protection systems. The same 

Reactor Trip System (RTS) and Engineered 

Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) 

instrumentation will continue to be 

supported and used as assumed so that the 

protection systems will continue to function 

in a manner consistent with the plant design 

basis. 

With regard to the proposed change to TS 

5.5.11.e and the associated reduction in 

heater capacity for the heaters in the Control 

Room Pressurization System filter trains, the 

heaters function to mitigate accidents 

previously evaluated in the FSAR, but failure 

of the heaters themselves (or the filter trains 

themselves) is not an initiator of such 

accidents. Further, even with the proposed 

reduction in heater capacity (wattage), the 

new heater capacity will still exceed filter 

operational requirements and the required 

safety margin by a significant amount. 

Therefore, the proposed change to the heater 

capacity will not increase the probability or 

consequences of an accident described in the 

Callaway FSAR. 

In consideration of all the above, for both 

TS changes, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents are required 

to be postulated from addition of proposed 

TS 3.7.20. No new accident scenarios, 

transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 

limiting single failures will be introduced as 

a result of this amendment. The proposed 

LCO will require both Class 1E electrical 

equipment A/C trains to be maintained 

OPERABLE during plant operation, thereby 

maintaining the capability of the system to 

perform its specified safety function for the 

supported electrical equipment. The 

proposed license amendment includes 

regulatory commitments to achieve the 

capability for one OPERABLE Class 1E 

electrical equipment A/C train to provide 

adequate cooling for both trains of electrical 

equipment during normal and accident 

conditions via design changes, but that 

capability will only be utilized per the 

temporary provisions of a Condition and 

Required Action(s) under TS 3.7.20. 

The proposed amendment will not alter the 

design or performance of the 7300 Process 

Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 

System, Solid State Protection System, 

Balance of Plant Engineered Safety Features 

Actuation System, Main Steam and 

Feedwater Isolation System, or Load Shedder 

and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the 

plant protection systems. As such, the change 

does not have a detrimental impact on the 

manner in which plant equipment operates 

or responds to an actuation signal. 

With respect to the proposed change to TS 

5.5.11.e and the associated reduction in 

heater capacity for the control room 

pressurization system filter trains, only the 

heater wattage/capacity is being changed. 

Overall system operation and required 

performance is not being changed. No other 

plant system is affected by this change 

(except for the beneficial effect of the 

reduced heat load on the Class 1E electrical 

equipment A/C system), and no new system 

operation or required response is introduced 

by this change. 

Based on the above, the proposed 

amendment will not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Proposed TS 3.7.20 includes a provision 

for restoring an inoperable Class 1E electrical 

equipment cooling train to Operable status 

within a reasonable but required Completion 

Time, which is consistent with the many 

other Technical Specifications for systems 

having independent and redundant trains 

(based on the relatively low risk associated 

with such a condition when single-failure 

protection is momentarily not ensured for the 

affected system). In this case, however, if 

availability of the Class 1E electrical 

equipment supported by the Class 1E 

electrical equipment A/C system is 

considered a margin of safety, the reduction 

in such a margin of safety for when a Class 

1E electrical equipment cooling train is 

declared inoperable is minimized due to the 

calculated capability of one A/C train to 

provide adequate cooling to both trains of 

Class 1E electrical equipment during normal 

and accident conditions (with proposed 

Condition A and its Required Actions in 

effect). The provision for restoring an 

inoperable Class 1E electrical equipment 

cooling train to Operable status within a 

reasonable but required Completion Time 

also allows a reasonable period to perform 

preventive and corrective maintenance, thus 

increasing or maintaining system reliability. 

With respect to the Class 1E electrical 

equipment and the area temperatures 

assumed for this equipment during normal 

conditions, that associated margin of safety is 

maintained by the requirement under 

proposed TS 3.7.20 (for when one Class 1E 

electrical equipment A/C train is declared 

inoperable) to periodically verify that the 

area/room temperatures are maintained 

within the specified limit (of less than or 

equal to 90 °F [degrees Fahrenheit]). In 

addition, the capability to remain at or below 

the post-accident temperature limit (of 

104 °F) for the Class 1E electrical equipment 

rooms will continue to be met, even with 

only one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C 

train OPERABLE, (providing the applicable 

Required Action under proposed TS 3.7.20 is 

met). 

It should also be noted that the addition of 

TS 3.7.20 has no impact on calculated 

releases and doses for postulated accidents, 

or on ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling 

System] actuation or RPS [Reactor Protection 

System]/ESFAS protection setpoints/limiting 

safety system settings, or any other parameter 

that could affect a margin of safety. 

For the proposed change to TS 5.5.11.e and 

the associated reduction in heater capacity 

for the charcoal filters in the control room 

pressurization trains, it should be noted that 

even with the proposed reduction, the 

minimum required heating capacity (for 

ensuring an influent air humidity of less than 

or equal to 70% relative humidity for the 

filter absorber train) would still be more than 

met. Thus, for this proposed change, there is 

no significant reduction in the margin of 

safety in regard to required pressurization 

train performance for the control room 

emergency ventilation system. 

Therefore, based on the above, the 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31196 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill, 

Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

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 access to SUNSI. A 

‘‘potential party’’ is any person who 

intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 

submitted later than 10 days after 

publication of this notice will not be 

considered absent a showing of good 

cause for the late filing, addressing why 

the request could not have been filed 

earlier. 

C. The requester shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 

and provide a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for Hearings, 

Enforcement and Administration, Office 

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. The expedited delivery 

or courier mail address for both offices 

is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. The email address for 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@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 requester’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention. 

D. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

C.(3) the NRC staff will determine 

within 10 days of receipt of the request 

whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requestor has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

E. If the NRC staff determines that the 

requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) 

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requestor in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requestor may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access to 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

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 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. 

G. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff after a 

determination on standing and requisite 

need, the NRC staff shall immediately 

notify the requestor in writing, briefly 

stating the reason or reasons for the 

denial. 

(2) The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination by 

filing a challenge within 5 days of 

receipt of that determination with: (a) 

The presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an Administrative Law Judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

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

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

(3) Further appeals of decisions under 

this paragraph must be made pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.311. 

H. Review of Grants of Access. A 

party other than the requester may 

challenge an NRC staff determination 

granting access to SUNSI whose release 

would harm that party’s interest 

independent of the proceeding. Such a 

challenge must be filed within 5 days of 

the notification by the NRC staff of its 

grant of access and must be filed with: 

(a) The presiding officer designated in 

this proceeding; (b) if no presiding 

officer has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an Administrative Law Judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

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

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31197 

The attachment to this Order 

summarizes the general target schedule 

for processing and resolving requests 

under these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of June, 2018. 

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; and describing the need for the information in 

order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 ...................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 ...................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for 

access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

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

to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief 

Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any 

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement for SUNSI. 

A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access 

to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a 

final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. 

A + 28 ............... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days 

remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as

established in the notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene), 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. 2018–12919 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATE: Weeks of July 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 

August 6, 2018. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of July 2, 2018 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 2, 2018. 

Week of July 9, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 9, 2018. 

Week of July 16, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 16, 2018. 

Week of July 23, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 23, 2018. 

Week of July 30, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 30, 2018. 

Week of August 6, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 6, 2018. 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. For more information or to verify 

the status of meetings, contact Denise 

McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email 

at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer-Chambers, NRC 

Disability Program Manager, at 301– 

287–0739, by videophone at 240–428– 

3217, or by email at Kimberly.MeyerChambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES