Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC-2014-0250]
 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 4 amendment 
                        ( print page 71451)
                        requests. The amendment requests are for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; and South Texas Project, 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 January 2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 2, 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 December 12, 2014.
 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-2014-0250. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; email: 
                        *Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.*
                         For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the 
                        **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**
                         section of this document.
                    *Mail comments to:*
                         Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, 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: Angela M. Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: 
                        *Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0250 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: *Federal Rulemaking Web site:*
                     Go to 
                    *http://www.regulations.gov*
                     and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0250.
                *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 
                    *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-2014-0250 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. 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 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.
                    ( print page 71452) 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. The petition must demonstrate that the matters raised are within the scope of the proceeding. The issues raised must be material to the finding the NRC must make to support the action involved in the proceeding. 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 of 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 ten 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 NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​getting-started.html.*
                     System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*
                     Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*( print page 71453) 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 
                    *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov,*
                     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 
                    *pdr.resource@nrc.gov.* Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of amendment request:*
                     September 25, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated December 30, 2013, March 10, 2014, and April 11, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13269A140, ML13364A286, ML14069A103, and ML14104A144, respectively. *Description of amendment request:*
                     This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed license amendment would allow Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) to operate in the expanded Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) domain. Specifically, the amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TSs) including the operating power/flow map and a number instrument allowable values and setpoints, and the current core stability solution. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:*
                     As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The probability (frequency of occurrence) of design basis accidents occurring is not affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain because GGNS continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for plant equipment. Furthermore, a probabilistic risk assessment demonstrates that the calculated core damage frequencies do not significantly change due to the MELLLA+. There is no change in consequences of postulated accidents when operating in the MELLLA+ operating domain compared to the operating domain previously evaluated. The results of accident evaluations remain within the NRC-approved acceptance limits. The spectrum of postulated transients has been investigated and shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. In the area of fuel and core design, for example, the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is still met. Continued compliance with the SLMCPR is confirmed on a cycle-specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC.
                        ( print page 71454) Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin. Challenges to the containment were evaluated and the containment and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the current licensing basis. The calculated post LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] suppression pool temperature remains acceptable. Based on the above, operating in the MELLLA+ domain does not increase 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. Equipment that could be affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated and no new or different kind of accident has been identified. The MELLLA+ operating domain uses developed technology, which is applied within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment in accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC-approved codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event precursor has been identified. In addition, the changes have been assessed and determined not to introduce a different accident than that previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The MELLLA+ operating domain affects only design and operating margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment were evaluated for MELLLA+ operating domain conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures, systems, and components, including the reactor coolant pressure boundary, will remain within their design allowables for design basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded. Because the GGNS configuration and responses to transients and postulated accidents do not exceed the NRC-approved acceptance limits, the proposed changes do 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:*
                     Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General Counsel—Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113. *NRC Branch Chief:*
                     Douglas A. Broaddus. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:*
                     September 4, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14247A503. *Description of amendment request:*
                     This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating Licenses to allow operation in the expanded Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) domain. The MELLLA+ expanded operating domain increases operating flexibility by allowing control of reactivity at maximum power by changing flow rather than by control rod insertion and withdrawal. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:*
                     As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) occurring is not affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain because PBAPS continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for plant equipment. There is no change in consequences of postulated accidents when operating in the MELLLA+ operating domain compared to the operating domain previously evaluated. The results of accident evaluations remain within the NRC approved acceptance limits. The spectrum of postulated transients has been investigated and is shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. Continued compliance with the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) will be confirmed on a cycle-specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC. Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin. Challenges to the containment were evaluated and the containment and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the current licensing basis. The calculated post-Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) suppression pool temperature remains acceptable. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Equipment that could be affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated and no new or different kind of accident has been identified. The MELLLA+ operating domain uses developed technology, and applies it within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment in accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC-approved codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event precursor has been identified. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed operation in the MELLLA+ domain does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The MELLLA+ operating domain affects only design and operational margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment were evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures, systems, and components, including the reactor coolant pressure boundary, will remain within their design allowables for design basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded. The PBAPS configuration and responses to transients and postulated accidents do not result in exceeding the presently approved NRC acceptance limits. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 
                    ( print page 71455)
                    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. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:*
                     September 17, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14267A030. *Description of amendment request:*
                     This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and TS 5.6.5 related to the moderator temperature coefficient. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:*
                     As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases for and values of the most negative MTC [moderator temperature coefficient] Limiting Condition for Operation [LCO] and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance limit to determine if the limit is met. The proposed changes to the TS [technical specification] do not affect the initiators of any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the proposed TS changes ensures that the previously evaluated accidents will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety. The probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report] are unaffected by this proposed change because there is no change to any equipment response or accident mitigation scenario. There are no new or additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed 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 safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance limit to determine if the limit is met. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally the proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. Thus, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related system. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do 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 safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance limit to determine if the limit is met. The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no affect on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-related systems and components. A change to a surveillance requirement is proposed based on an alternate method of confirming that the surveillance is met. The Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) limits are not being changed. The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis. Therefore, it is concluded that 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. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:*
                     August 14, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14260A432. *Description of amendment request:*
                     This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise Administrative Controls Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.6, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),” with respect to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. During the 2015, refueling outages for STP, Units 1 and 2, STP Nuclear Operating Company will replace the existing Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow Measurement (UFM) System with a Cameron/Caldon Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) CheckPlus System for measuring feedwater flow. The proposed TS change would revise the methodology for operating at a rated thermal power (RTP) of 3,853 Megawatt Thermal (MWt) to reflect the change of feedwater flow measurement equipment. This license amendment request and its TS change reflect only the equipment change and do not constitute a measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate application. STP, Units 1 and 2, will continue to operate with the currently licensed RTP of 3,853 MWt. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:*
                     As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change reflects a physical alteration of the plant, but not a new or different type of equipment. The existing external Crossflow UFM System will be replaced with the Cameron/Caldon LEFM 
                        ( print page 71456)
                        CheckPlus System, both of which are ultrasonic feedwater flow measuring systems. The proposed change will not affect the operation or function of plant equipment or systems. The proposed change will not introduce any new accident initiators, and therefore, does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance. The proposed change will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)]. Therefore, the proposed change does not increase 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 proposed change reflects a physical alteration of the plant, but not a new or different type of equipment. The existing external Crossflow UFM System is being replaced with the Cameron/Caldon LEFM CheckPlus System, both of which are ultrasonic feedwater flow measuring systems. The NRC Ultrasonic Flow Meter Allegation Task Group believes the LEFM CheckPlus UFMs are inherently better able to recognize and are less sensitive to changes in the velocity profile than the external UFM designs (Reference 6.5 [of the application dated August 14, 2014]). The proposed TS change is a change to the Administrative Controls section of the TS which does not change the meaning, intent, interpretation, or application of the TS. The physical plant change reflected by the TS change does alter the plant configuration by replacing one feedwater measurement system with another. However, this does not alter assumptions about previously analyzed accidents, or impact the operation or function of any plant equipment or systems. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The Caldon LEFM CheckPlus System has a mass flow uncertainty of less than +0.5%, which is bounded by the total mass flow uncertainty of +0.97% applied in the current STP operating license. The safety analysis acceptance criteria as stated in the UFSAR are not impacted by the change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed LEFM CheckPlus System has demonstrated better measurement accuracies than the differential pressure type instruments and provides on-line verification to ensure that the system is operating within its uncertainty bounds. The existing safety analyses remain bounding. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:*
                     Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:*
                     Michael T. Markley. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-78, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation 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 
                    ( print page 71457)
                    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 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 20th day of November, 2014. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 ATTACHMENT 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Res+olving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information in This Proceeding Day
Event/activity0
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.( print page 71458)A + 60
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.>A + 60
Decision on contention admission.


# Footnotes

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. Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2014-28062 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P