24048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of May 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (SUNSI) AND SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (SGI) IN THIS PROCEEDING

Day Event/Activity 

0 ......................... Publication of notice of receipt of update to application for facility operating license and notice of opportunity for hearing, including order with instructions for access requests. 

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

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

meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that access should be granted (e.g., showing technical competence for access to SGI); and, for SGI, including application fee for fingerprint/background check. 

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

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

believe standing can be established and shows (1) need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI. (For SUNSI, NRC staff 

also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of 

the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document 

processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). If NRC staff makes the finding of need to know for 

SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins background check (including fingerprinting for a criminal history records 

check), information processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents), and readiness inspections. 

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

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

SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by 

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

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

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

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

Agreement for SUNSI. 

190 ..................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing, need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC staff 

to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a determination that the proposed recipient 

of SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). NOTE : Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding 

access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. 

205 ..................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer. 

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 and/or SGI consistent with decision issuing 

the protective order. 

A + 28 ................ Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more 

than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other 

contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

A + 53 ................ (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. 

A + 60 ................ (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

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

[FR Doc. E9–11903 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 72–7–EA; ASLBP No. 09–888– 

03–EA–BD01] 

Detroit Edison Company; 

Establishment of Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board 

Pursuant to delegation by the 

Commission dated December 29, 1972 

(37 FR 28710), and the Commission’s 

regulations, see 10 CFR 2.106, 2.300, 

2.313(a), and 2.318, notice is hereby 

given that an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (Board) is being 

established to preside over the following 

proceeding: 

Detroit Edison Company Fermi Power 

Plant 

(Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation) 

This proceeding concerns a Petition to 

Intervene dated May 7, 2009 from 

Beyond Nuclear, et al., that was 

submitted in response to an April 17, 

2009 notice issued by the NRC Staff that 

provided the Issuance of Order for 

Implementation of Additional Security 

Measures and Fingerprinting for 

Unescorted Access to Detroit Edison 

Company (74 FR 17890). 

The Board is comprised of the 

following administrative judges: 

Ronald M. Spritzer, Chair, Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

Randall J. Charbeneau, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

All correspondence, documents, and 

other materials shall be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing Rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

2007 (72 FR 49139). 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 24049 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th 

day of May 2009. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9–11985 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC 2009–0214] 

Announcement of a Proposed Process 

Change Regarding the Review of 

Research and Test Reactor License 

Renewal Applications; Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of stakeholder meeting 

regarding a proposed process change for 

the renewal of research and test reactor 

licenses. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing a 

streamlined review process for license 

renewal applications (LRAs) for 

research and test reactor (RTR) licenses 

with the objective of expeditiously 

resolving the backlog of LRAs while 

maintaining safety standards. Draft 

Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) proposed 

to be implemented will be published for 

public review prior to the meeting on 

the NRC Public Meeting Schedule Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/index.cfm. 

DATES: A public meeting for 

stakeholders will be held June 4, 2009, 

commencing at 1 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 

1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Adams Jr., Division of Policy 

and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

1127, e-mail alexander.adams@nrc.gov; 

or Marcus Voth, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 415–1210, e-mail 

marcus.voth@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the present time 21 of the 32 RTRs 

licensed to operate in the United States 

have LRAs before the NRC. Several 

issues have contributed to the large 

backlog, including NRC licensing 

staffing levels, emergent issues, limited 

licensee resources, existing license 

infrastructure, regulatory requirements, 

and the broad scope of the RTR license 

renewal process as discussed in SECY– 

08–0161, ‘‘Review of Research and Test 

Reactor License Renewal Applications,’’ 

dated October 24, 2008. In a staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM) 

dated March 26, 2009, the staff was 

directed to streamline the current 

license renewal process incorporating 

concepts discussed in SECY–08–0161 

among other measures. These 

documents can be found on the NRC 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management system (ADAMS) under 

accession numbers ML0825501403 and 

ML0908501591, respectively. The staff 

is presently developing proposed 

guidance along with the rationale for the 

focused license renewal process for 

RTRs. 

The traditional process currently 

being used for reviewing LRAs is to 

perform a full review based on the 

standard review plan for RTRs, NUREG– 

1537, ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and 

Reviewing Applications for the 

Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Part 

2,’’ February 1996. The standard review 

plan addresses all of the topics required 

to be addressed in applications by 10 

CFR 50.33 and 50.34, the same process 

as used for an initial license issuance. 

The staff is proposing to continue this 

full review process for those LRAs well 

into the renewal review process and for 

RTRs licensed for power levels equal to 

or greater than 2 megawatts. The staff 

proposes to apply the new focused 

review process to the remaining LRAs in 

the backlog. 

Two public meetings were held to 

discuss formulation of the proposed 

process with stakeholders, the first on 

September 15, 2008, and a second on 

March 25, 2009. In each meeting the 

staff presented aspects of the proposed 

streamlined review process and 

addressed questions from the public. 

Objectives of the Focused Review 

Process for RTR License Renewal 

The objective of the focused review 

process for license renewal is to provide 

a process that ensures that applications 

are properly evaluated, documented, 

and implemented in accordance with 

the following goals: 

• To ensure the continued health and 

safety of the public and protection of the 

environment, 

• To provide public confidence in the 

regulatory oversight process, 

• To propose an effective, efficient, 

and timely method of processing the 

existing LRA backlog, 

• To develop, document, and 

implement Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 

for a focused review process, 

• To acknowledge the safe operating 

histories of RTRs demonstrated over the 

facility lifetime documented in reports 

of periodic NRC inspections, and 

• To meet requirements of Section 

104.c of the Atomic Energy Act calling 

for ‘‘* * * only such minimum amount 

of regulation of the licensee as the 

Commission finds will permit the 

common defense and security to protect 

the health and safety of the public and 

will permit the conduct of widespread 

and diverse research and development.’’ 

The staff is proposing that a focused 

approach be implemented for those 

facilities in the current LRA backlog that 

have been reviewed in the past and 

found to have low risk to the public 

health and safety. ISG is being prepared 

that will define a focused review 

process which meets regulatory 

requirements and the goals stated above 

while taking credit for previous reviews 

of structures, systems, and components. 

Likewise, a Safety Evaluation Report 

will be prepared that contains fewer 

than the entire 18 topics addressed in 

the standard review plan but at a 

minimum will address the three areas 

most critical to safety; reactor design 

and operation, accident analysis, and 

technical specifications. The staff is 

proposing that the ISG not be applied in 

the following two situations. 

First, the staff proposes that the 

traditional full review process be used 

for RTRs licensed for greater than 2 

megawatts. The licensed maximum 

thermal power levels of the RTRs range 

from 5 watts to 20 megawatts. The staff 

routinely uses a graded approach to 

apply regulations commensurate with 

the risk of licensed RTRs. A longstanding demarcation used by the staff 

has required additional regulatory 

attention to RTRs licensed for 2 

megawatts or greater. Part of the 

technical basis for this threshold is that 

reactor power is related to the potential 

fission product inventory which in turn 

determines the potential dose 

consequence of an accident. 

Second, the review of some LRAs 

which are currently nearing completion 

using the traditional full review process 

will continue to be performed in that 

manner rather than using the ISG to 

allow for the efficient use of staff 

resources. In implementing the 

proposed ISG the staff may find that one 

or more exemptions to certain 

regulations may be required. If a need 

for an exemption should arise it is 

proposed to be processed using existing 

provisions in the regulations for 

granting exemptions. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES