[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11492-11498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03917]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  
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):
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#743715061b185a3315181815131c1106341a06175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f5d7c4d9da98f1d7dadad7d1ded3c4f6d8c4d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#386b50514a545d41166a57504a5d4a78564a5b165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="47142f2e352b223e6915282f3522350729352469202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0030.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0a0b4a2fea2b5a3bfa5a2b3b590bea2b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abdbcfd985d9ced8c4ded9c8ceebc5d9c885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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/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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcb4b9bdaeb5b2bbf2b8b3bfb7b9a89cb2aebff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="335b5652415a5d541d575c50585647735d41501d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>, 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/

[[Page 11494]]

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 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da9789929ef488bfa9b5afa8b9bf9ab4a8b9f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c68b958e82e894a3b5a9b3b4a5a386a8b4a5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 
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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a6a7e6834687f69756f68797f5a746879347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="542430267a2631273b21263731143a26377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.
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

[[Page 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 NRC-approved 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 NRC-approved 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

[[Page 11496]]

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-
before-break, 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 best-estimate 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 11497]]

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 Non-
Safeguards 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="266e4347544f4841086249454d43526648544508414950">[email protected]</a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105f57537d71797c73757e647562507e62733e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="054a424668646c6966606b716077456b77662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>, 
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

[[Page 11498]]

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 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>