11492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04298 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0030] 

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 four 

amendment requests. The amendment 

requests are for Braidwood Station, 

Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 

1 and 2; Peach Bottom Atomic Power 

Station, Unit 2; Diablo Canyon Nuclear 

Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2. 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 April 

2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be 

filed by May 4, 2015. 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 March 13, 

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–2015–0030. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

O12–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: 

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–2015– 

0030 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 Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0030. 

• 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 (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– 

0030, 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 posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11493 

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 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may 

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

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/esubmittals.html, by email to 

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

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 

electronically through ADAMS in the 

NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR’s 

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

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 

50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron Station, 

Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: October 

16, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14289A580. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment would allow utilization of 

WCAP–16143–P, Revision 1, ‘‘Reactor 

Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Flange 

Requirements Evaluation for Byron/

Braidwood Units 1 and 2,’’ dated 

October 2014, as an analytical method 

to determine the reactor coolant system 

pressure and temperature (P–T) limits. 

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 

with NRC staff’s edits in square 

brackets: 

EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] 

has evaluated the proposed change for 

Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using 

the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has 

determined that the proposed change does 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11495 

not involve a significant hazards 

consideration. The following information is 

provided to support a finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Criteria 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

These changes to the analysis do not 

adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors, nor alter the design assumptions 

or conditions of the facility previously 

approved by the NRC, or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The revisions to the subject WCAP [WCAP– 

16143[–P]] do not alter or prevent the ability 

of structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs) from performing their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The changes also do not 

affect the source term, containment isolation, 

or radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated; do not 

increase the types or amounts of radioactive 

effluent that may be released offsite; and do 

not significantly increase individual or 

cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The use of WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 1, 

for generation of [Reactor Pressure Vessel] 

RPV P–T limits, will continue to ensure that 

RPV integrity is maintained under all 

conditions. The revisions contained in 

WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 1, and the 

changes proposed to TS [Technical 

Specifications] Table 1.1–1 do not change the 

conclusions of WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 0, 

previously approved by the NRC; nor do they 

change the way the RPV is analyzed or 

performs its safety function. Subsequently, 

these changes do not result in the creation of 

any new accident initiators or precursors; do 

not result in changes to any existing accident 

scenarios; and do not introduce any 

operational changes or mechanisms that 

would create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Based on the above discussion, the 

proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not change any 

safety limits or reduce the margin of safety 

to any safety limits. The stress analysis and 

fracture mechanics evaluation, documented 

in the revision to WCAP–16143[–P], 

determined that for the RPV boltup 

condition, the RPV 54-stud case (i.e., all RPV 

head studs in-service) was more limiting than 

the RPV 53-stud case (i.e., one RPV head stud 

out-of-service). In addition, the conclusions 

of the updated analysis for the RPV 54-stud 

case confirmed the conclusions from WCAP– 

16143, Revision 0. This change, 

subsequently, has no impact on the current 

RPV P–T limit curves. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based on the above, EGC concludes that 

the proposed changes do 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 amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, Illinois 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–277, 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

(PBAPS), Unit 2, York and Lancaster 

Counties, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 5, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14342A229. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment would revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) related to the Safety 

Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios 

(SLMCPRs). The proposed changes 

result from a cycle-specific analysis 

performed to support the operation of 

PBAPS, Unit 2, in the upcoming Cycle 

21. The re-analysis was performed to 

accommodate operation in the 

Maximum Extended Load Line Limit 

Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating 

domain based on a separate license 

amendment request (LAR) dated 

September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14247A503). 

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 

with NRC staff’s edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The derivation of the cycle specific Safety 

Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios 

(SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the 

Technical Specifications (TS), and their use 

to determine cycle specific thermal limits, 

has been performed using the methodology 

discussed in NEDE–24011–P–A, ‘‘General 

Electric Standard Application for Reactor 

Fuel,’’ Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13352A474]. 

The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to 

ensure that during normal operation and 

during anticipated operational transients, at 

least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not 

experience boiling transition if the limit is 

not violated. The new SLMCPRs preserve the 

existing margin to boiling transition. 

The MCPR safety limit is reevaluated for 

each reload using NRC-approved 

methodologies. The analyses for PBAPS, Unit 

2 Cycle 21, with the addition of operation in 

the MELLLA+ operating domain, have 

concluded that a two recirculation loop 

MCPR safety limit of ≥1.15, based on the 

application of Global Nuclear Fuel’s NRCapproved MCPR safety limit methodology, 

will ensure that this acceptance criterion is 

met. For single recirculation loop operation, 

a MCPR safety limit of ≥1.15 also ensures that 

this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR 

operating limits are presented and controlled 

in accordance with the PBAPS Unit 2 Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR). 

The requested TS changes do not involve 

any additional plant modifications or 

operational changes that could affect system 

reliability or performance or that could affect 

the probability of operator error beyond those 

associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14247A503]. The requested 

changes do not affect any postulated accident 

precursors, do not affect any accident 

mitigating systems, and do not introduce any 

new accident initiation mechanisms. 

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do 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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, 

calculated to ensure that during normal 

operation and during anticipated operational 

transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in 

the core do not experience boiling transition 

if the limit is not violated. The new 

SLMCPRs are calculated using NRCapproved methodology discussed in NEDE– 

24011–P–A, ‘‘General Electric Standard 

Application for Reactor Fuel,’’ Revision 20 

[ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. The 

proposed changes do not involve any new 

modes of operation, any changes to setpoints, 

or any plant modifications beyond those 

associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14247A503]. The proposed 

revised MCPR safety limits have been shown 

to be acceptable for Cycle 21 operation with 

the MELLLA+ operating domain. The core 

operating limits will continue to be 

developed using NRC-approved methods. 

The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods 

for establishing the core operating limits do 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

not result in the creation of any new 

precursors to an accident. 

Therefore, this 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. 

There is no significant reduction in the 

margin of safety previously approved by the 

NRC as a result of the proposed change to the 

SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated 

using methodology discussed in NEDE– 

24011–P–A, ‘‘General Electric Standard 

Application for Reactor Fuel,’’ Revision 20 

[ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. The 

SLMCPRs ensure that during normal 

operation and during anticipated operational 

transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in 

the core do not experience boiling transition 

if the limits are not violated, thereby 

preserving the fuel cladding integrity. 

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety previously approved by the NRC. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, it appears that 

the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon 

Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 

19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), 

Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: October 

2, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14275A444. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendments request approval to 

perform the fuel assembly structural 

analyses based on a pipe break that 

considers the application of leak-beforebreak, which allows the exclusion of the 

dynamic effects of certain pipe breaks, 

consistent with 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix A, General Design Criterion 4, 

‘‘Environmental and design effects 

design bases,’’ for DCPP, Units 1 and 2. 

The fuel assembly structural analyses 

are performed to satisfy NUREG–0800, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ Section 

4.2, ‘‘Fuel System Design,’’ Appendix A, 

‘‘Evaluation of Fuel Assembly Structural 

Response to Externally Applied Forces,’’ 

Revision 3, March 2007 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070740002). Further, 

the licensee requests approval to use the 

fuel assembly structural analysis results 

to satisfy, in part, the emergency core 

cooling system performance criterion, 

10 CFR 50.46(b)(4), ‘‘Coolable 

geometry.’’ 

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 

with NRC staff’s edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change requests approval to 

perform the fuel assembly structural analyses 

based on a pipe break that considers the 

application of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). 

Performing the fuel assembly structural 

analyses based on a pipe break that considers 

the application of LBB will not impact any 

accident previously evaluated. 

No physical changes are being made to the 

plant as a result of this change. DCPP will 

continue to satisfy the criteria of 10 CFR 

50.46(b) with this change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant. The bestestimate large break loss-of-coolant [accident] 

(BELOCA) analyses are not impacted by this 

change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The revised fuel structural integrity 

analysis incorporates the reduced LBB loads 

and therefore will not decrease the margin of 

safety to the 10 CFR 50.46 limits. The 

BELOCA analyses are not impacted by this 

change, and the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46(b) 

continue to be met. The proposed change 

does not involve any changes to the fuel, 

reactor vessel, or containment fission product 

barriers. Therefore there will be no impact on 

the accident analyses that are contained in 

the Updated Final Safety 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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, 

Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50– 

425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 

Georgia; Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50– 

364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 

(FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 

Alabama; Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50– 

366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 

(HNP), Units 1 and 2, City of Dalton, 

Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

December 30, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14365A352. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendments 

would revise the Cyber Security Plan 

(CSP) implementation schedule. 

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 

with NRC staff’s edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed license amendment request 

is for a change to the Milestone 8 

implementation schedule for the SNC CSP, as 

cited by the existing FOLs [facility operating 

licenses] applicable to FNP, HNP and VEGP 

Units 1 and 2. 

The CSP is designed to provide high 

assurance that the systems within the scope 

of § 73.54 are protected from cyber attacks. 

The CSP itself does not require any plant 

modifications, but the plan describes 

appropriate configuration management 

requirements to assure plant modifications 

involving digital computer systems are 

reviewed to provide adequate protection 

against cyber attacks, up to and including the 

design basis threat as defined in § 73.54. 

The proposed change is a schedule change 

for CSP implementation only; it will modify 

the existing FOL for each SNC-operated 

facility to add citation of the license 

amendment establishing the new Milestone 8 

completion date. This change is 

administrative in nature and does not alter 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11497 

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. 

the plant configuration, involve the 

installation of new plant equipment, alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any new 

initiators, or affect the function of plant 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. 

Based on the above, 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 will modify the 

existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility 

to add citation of the license amendment 

establishing the new Milestone 8 completion 

date for CSP implementation. This change is 

administrative in nature and does not alter 

plant configuration, install new plant 

equipment, alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 

function of plant systems or the manner in 

which systems are operated, maintained, 

tested, or inspected. 

Accordingly, 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 SNC CSP Milestone 8 

implementation date change does not alter 

plant configuration, install new plant 

equipment, alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 

function of plant systems or the manner in 

which systems are operated, maintained, 

tested, or inspected. Plant safety margins are 

established through Limiting Conditions for 

Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings 

and Safety Limits specified in the Technical 

Specifications. Because there is no change to 

these established safety margins, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

The proposed change will modify the 

existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility 

to add citation of the license amendment 

establishing the new Milestone 8 completion 

date. This change is administrative in nature 

and does not involve a reduction in margin 

of safety. 

Based on the above, 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: Leigh D. Perry, 

SVP & General Counsel of Operations 

and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 

Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35201. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois, Docket Nos. STN 

50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron Station, 

Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–277, 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 

Unit 2, York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 

1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia, Docket 

Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. 

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 

50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, City of 

Dalton, Georgia 

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 

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 the requestor is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

3Requesters 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. 

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

I. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of February, 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. 2015–03917 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES