[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25715-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0092]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of five amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Kewaunee Power Station; Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3;
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Surry Power Station, Units 1
and 2; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2;
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and
2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3;
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3; and
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. The NRC proposes to
determine that each amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 4, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 6, 2015. Any potential party as defined in Sec.
2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who
believes access to SUNSI is
[[Page 25716]]
necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by May
15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0092. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0092 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0092.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0092, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in
the Federal Register. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible
[[Page 25717]]
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the
[[Page 25718]]
document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate
in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on
those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other
participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and
receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to
intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
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
online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
[email protected].
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14329A313.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP), Milestone 8
(MS8), full implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation
Schedule for the following plants: Kewaunee Power Station; Millstone
Power Station, Units 2 and 3; North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2;
and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
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:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The amendment proposes a change to the CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP implementation schedule.
The revision of the full implementation date for the CSP does not
involve modifications to any safety-related structures, systems or
components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule provides a
timetable for fully implementing the CSP. The CSP describes how the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify,
evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design
basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks
are protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CSP
implementation schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
A revision to the CSP implementation schedule does not require
any plant modifications. The proposed revision to the CSP
implementation schedule does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. Revision of the CSP implementation
schedule does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure
[[Page 25719]]
modes are created. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed revision to
the CSP implementation schedule does not alter the way any safety-
related SSC functions and does not alter the way the plant is
operated. The CSP provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed revision to the CSP
implementation schedule does not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed revision to the CSP implementation schedule has no
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the
above considerations, the proposed revision to the CSP
implementation schedule would not degrade the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers to limit the level of
radiation to the public.
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
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, Virginia
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14241A526.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment requests NRC approval of a change to the Cyber Security Plan
(CSP), Milestone 8 (MS8), full implementation date as set forth in the
CSP Implementation Schedule as approved by the NRC in letters dated
August 19, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A037), and October 24, 2013
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13295A467).
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:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has evaluated whether or
not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the
proposed amendments by focusing on the three standards set forth in
10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 (MS8) full implementation date as set forth in the CSP
Implementation Schedule and associated regulatory commitments. The
revision of the MS8 implementation date for the CSP does not involve
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The revision of the CSP Implementation Schedule
will not alter previously evaluated design basis accident analysis
assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify the function of the
plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant safety-related
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule
and associated regulatory commitments. The revision of the MS8 full
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to
any safety-related SSCs. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule
and associated regulatory commitments. The revision of the MS8 full
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to
any safety-related SSCs. The proposed amendment has no effect on the
structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure
boundary, or containment structure.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment(s)
does not involve a 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: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
Illinois 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
[[Page 25720]]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: March 12, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15072A052.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment requests revision of the operating license to extend the
completion date for full implementation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station Cyber Security Plan from July 1, 2016, until the end of
December 2017.
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 amendment extends the completion date for milestone
8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation schedule. Revising
the full implementation date for the CSP does not involve
modifications to any safety related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The implementation schedule provides a timeline
for fully implementing the CSP. The CSP describes how the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify,
evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design
basis cyber attack threat; thereby achieving high assurance that the
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks
are protected from cyber-attacks. The revision of the CSP
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators,
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, tested, or
inspected.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. New
equipment is not installed with the proposed amendment, nor does the
proposed amendment cause existing equipment to be operated in a new
or different manner. The change to cyber security implementation
plan milestone 8 is administrative in nature and relies on the
significant protection against cyber-attacks that has been gained
through the implementation of CSP milestones 1 through 7. Since the
proposed amendment does not involve a change to the plant design or
operation, no new system interactions are created by this change.
The proposed changes do not result in any new failure modes, and
thus cannot initiate an accident different from those previously
evaluated.
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.
The proposed amendment does not affect the performance of any
structures, systems or components as described in the design basis
analyses. The change to milestone 8 of the cyber security
implementation plan is administrative in nature. The proposed change
does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or involve a
physical modification to the plant. The proposed amendment does not
introduce changes to limits established in the accident analysis.
Since there is no impact to any SSCs, or any maintenance or
operational practice, there is also no reduction in any margin of
safety.
As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio
44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: January 27, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15040A698.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System]
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits.'' The TVA submitted this license
amendment request to satisfy a commitment to prepare and submit revised
BFN, Unit 3, P/T limits prior to the start of the period of extended
operation, as discussed in ``Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN)--Units 1,
2, and 3--Application for Renewed Operating Licenses,'' dated December
31, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040060359).
Specifically, the proposed change affects the current sets of TS
Figures 3.4.9-1, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Mechanical Heat up,
Cooldown following Shutdown, and Reactor Critical Operations,'' and
3.4.9-2, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Reactor In-Service Leak and
Hydrostatic Testing.'' The proposed change replaces the current set
valid up to 20 effective full power years (EFPYs) with a new set valid
up to 38 EFPYs, and replaces the current set valid up to 28 EFPYs with
a new set valid up to 54 EFPYs.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that
have been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/
T limit curves were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies.
The proposed changes deal exclusively with the reactor vessel P/T
limit curves, which define the permissible regions for operation and
testing. Failure of the reactor vessel is not considered as a design
basis accident. Through the design conservatisms used to calculate
the P/T limit curves, reactor vessel failure has a low probability
of occurrence and is not considered in the safety analyses. The
proposed changes adjust the reference temperature for the limiting
material to account for irradiation effects and provide the same
level of protection as previously evaluated and approved.
The adjusted reference temperature calculations were performed
in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, using
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.190, ``Calculational
and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron
Fluence,'' to reflect use of the operating limits to no more than 54
Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). These changes do not alter or
prevent the operation of equipment required to mitigate any accident
analyzed in the BFN Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 25721]]
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 changes are accepted operating parameters that have
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to the P/T
limit curves were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. The
proposed changes to the reactor vessel P/T limit curves do not
involve a modification to plant equipment. No new failure modes are
introduced. There is no effect on the function of any plant system,
and no new system interactions are introduced by this change.
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.
The proposed changes are accepted operating parameters that have
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T
curves were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. The
proposed curves conform to the guidance contained in Regulatory
Guide 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining
Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' and maintain the safety margins
specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix G.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14363A158.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety
Limits],'' of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for all three units,
to lower the value of the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit from
the current 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig. The
proposed lowering of this safety limit will effectively expand the
validity range for the units' critical power correlations and the
calculation of the minimum critical power ratio. Specifically, the
revised value of 585 psig is consistent with the lower range of the
critical power correlations currently in use at the units. The revised
value will also adequately bound a pressure regulator failure open
transient event. No hardware, design, or operational change is involved
with this proposed amendment.
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. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, 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 to the safety limit in TS Section 2.1.1 will
continue to support the validity of the existing critical power
correlations applied at the units. The proposed TS revision involves
no change to the operation of any system or component during normal,
accident, or transient operating conditions. The proposed amendment
does not involve any modification to plant hardware, design, or
operation.
Therefore, 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 a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit
from 785 psig to 585 psig is an administrative change and does not
involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating
characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not introduce a new or
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of plant
structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for
safe operation and setpoints of equipment relied upon to respond to
transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in
reactor dome pressure does not change the requirements governing
operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to
preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the
behavior of the plant equipment, which remains unchanged.
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
its own analysis, determines 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
[[Page 25722]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing,
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected],
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis
and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will
[[Page 25723]]
consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for
protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any
unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing
and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis
requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes
the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under
these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information in this Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) demonstration
of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requester of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requester to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-09761 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P