Overview
Title
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
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government group that watches over nuclear power is thinking about changing some rules at three power plants. They believe these changes won't make things any more dangerous, but since the changes include some secret stuff, they have special rules for looking at it.
Summary AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced its consideration of three amendment requests related to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The NRC plans to determine that these amendments pose no significant hazards. Since these requests include sensitive information, the NRC has set special procedures for accessing this information to prepare for any challenges. The public can comment on these requests, and those interested in hearings or interventions have specific deadlines to file their requests.
Abstract
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and/or safeguards information (SGI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention preparation.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register details the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) consideration of amendment requests related to nuclear facilities in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Tennessee. The essential focus of this document revolves around the safety and security of nuclear power operations and sets out specific procedures for public participation and assessment, especially where sensitive information is involved.
Overview of the Document
The NRC is reviewing requests to amend licenses for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. These amendments are expected to pose no significant hazards to the public. However, given the sensitive nature of some information involved, the NRC has set specialized procedures for how this information can be accessed by those who wish to comment or intervene in the proceedings. Public comments are welcome, and those interested in hearings or interventions must adhere to specific filing deadlines.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document is laden with legal and technical jargon, which might make it challenging for the average individual to understand. As it deals with sensitive unclassified information and safeguards information, the procedures for accessing these details are complex. The steps involve numerous requirements, such as obtaining digital ID certificates and undergoing background checks, which could appear cumbersome and time-consuming to potential participants.
A fee of $326 per individual for the required background check could pose a financial burden, particularly for groups or individuals with multiple participants needing access. There are areas of potential confusion, such as the definitions of "need to know" and "technical competence," which could lead to ambiguities during the process.
The document's instructions regarding electronic and paper submissions are detailed and, for those unacquainted with these processes, potentially overwhelming. Moreover, references to specific legal codes might not be easily accessible or comprehensible without legal expertise. Ambiguities around exemptions from the background check requirement could also lead to misunderstandings regarding eligibility.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the essence of this document is about ensuring nuclear facilities' operations remain safe and do not pose significant risks. While the public has opportunities to participate in commenting or intervening in the process, the complicated procedural aspects might discourage or hinder public engagement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved—such as nuclear facility operators, local governments, and advocacy groups—the document outlines the procedures necessary for compliance and participation in the amendment review process. It sets detailed protocols ensuring that those who wish to engage are well-qualified and trustworthy, which is crucial in maintaining the security and safety of nuclear operations. However, the complexities involved may extend timelines and add financial burdens, particularly for smaller entities or individuals with limited resources.
Overall, while the document establishes a rigorous framework to protect sensitive information and ensure informed participation, its intricacies might act as barriers to accessibility and participation for some stakeholders. The careful balancing of security with public engagement remains a central theme throughout.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document highlights a financial component specifically related to the process of accessing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) within the context of amendments to facility operating licenses and combined licenses.
Financial Summary and Implications
The document mentions a fee of $326.00, which is required for obtaining a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal history records check. This fee is associated with a completed Form FD-258, also known as a fingerprint card, and is part of the procedural steps for individuals seeking access to SGI.
Relationship to Identified Issues
One of the issues identified in the document is the potential financial burden posed by the $326.00 fee for background checks, particularly when multiple individuals are involved in the process. In scenarios where several people must be vetted, these costs can quickly add up, potentially creating a barrier to access, especially for smaller organizations or individuals without substantial resources. This concern may be exacerbated by the fact that such fees are subject to change, adding an element of financial unpredictability.
Additionally, the document outlines several procedural and regulatory requirements, including the need to establish standing, demonstrate a specific need to know, and technical competence to access SGI. These procedural complexities, when combined with the financial outlay, could contribute to what some might perceive as a bureaucratic and costly process, possibly deterring some parties from pursuing access altogether.
Conclusion
The financial reference in the document underscores a critical aspect of the bureaucratic process involved in accessing sensitive information related to nuclear facilities' licensing amendments. While the fee is a necessary component for ensuring security and compliance with federal regulations, it also highlights the potential financial hurdles and administrative complexities that applicants need to navigate. These factors collectively emphasize the need for clarity and potential financial support mechanisms to streamline the process and make it more accessible to a broader range of stakeholders.
Issues
• The document involves complex language and legal jargon that may be difficult for the general public to understand, particularly, sections such as the Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation.
• The process for accessing SUNSI and SGI involves multiple steps with detailed requirements that might be seen as cumbersome and overly bureaucratic.
• The fee of $326.00 for a background check for accessing SGI might appear to some as costly or financially burdensome, especially if there are multiple individuals involved, though it is noted the fee is subject to change.
• There might be a lack of clarity and transparency regarding what constitutes sufficient 'need to know' and 'technical competence' for accessing SUNSI or SGI, leading to potential ambiguities in adjudication.
• The instructions on paper and electronic submissions, including obtaining a digital ID certificate, might be considered complex and could lead to delays if not handled correctly.
• The document refers to specific regulations and legal codes (e.g., 10 CFR parts 2 and 73), which might not be easily accessible or understandable without extensive legal knowledge.
• Ambiguity regarding exemptions from the criminal history records check and background check requirements could lead to confusion regarding eligibility and procedural steps.
• The ability for parties to challenge NRC staff determinations could lead to lengthy disputes, potentially delaying project timelines or the amendment approval process.