71450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

States met all of the criteria of that 

section necessary to qualify for the 

waiver of the additional credit 

reduction. Further, the additional credit 

reduction of section 3302(c)(2)(B) is zero 

for these States for 2014. Therefore, 

employers in these States will have no 

additional credit reduction applied for 

calendar year 2014. In addition, 

Missouri, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin 

did not have balance of advances at the 

beginning of November 10, 2014. 

Therefore, employers in those States 

will have no reduction in FUTA offset 

credit for calendar year 2014. 

Section 3302(g) of FUTA provides 

that a State may avoid any reduction in 

credit for a year by meeting certain 

criteria. South Carolina applied for 

avoidance of the 2014 credit reduction 

under this section. It has been 

determined that South Carolina met all 

of the criteria of section 3302(g) and 

thus qualifies for credit reduction 

avoidance. Therefore, South Carolina 

employers will have no reduction in 

FUTA credit for calendar year 2014. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28328 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0245] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 

submit an information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget and solicitation of public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) invites public 

comment about our intention to request 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) approval for renewal of an 

existing information collection that is 

summarized below. We are required to 

publish this notice in the Federal 

Register under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 

requirement to be submitted: 

1. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards 

for Protection Against Radiation.’’ 

2. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0014. 

3. How often the collection is 

required: Annually for most reports and 

at license termination for reports 

dealing with decommissioning. 

4. Who is required or asked to report: 

NRC licensees and Agreement State 

licensees, including those requesting 

license terminations. Types of licensees 

include civilian commercial, industrial, 

academic, and medical users of nuclear 

materials. Licenses are issued for, 

among other things, the possession, use, 

processing, handling, and importing and 

exporting of nuclear materials, and for 

the operation of nuclear reactors. 

5. The number of annual respondents: 

21,018 (3,003 NRC licensees and 18,015 

Agreement State licensees). 

6. The number of hours needed 

annually to complete the requirement or 

request: 640,776 hours (91,545 hours for 

NRC licensees and 549,231 hours for 

Agreement State licensees). 

7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 20 establishes 

standards for protection against ionizing 

radiation resulting from activities 

conducted under licenses issued by the 

NRC and by Agreement States. These 

standards require the establishment of 

radiation protection programs, 

maintenance of radiation protection 

programs, maintenance of radiation 

records recording of radiation received 

by workers, reporting of incidents 

which could cause exposure to 

radiation, submittal of an annual report 

to NRC and to Agreement States of the 

results of individual monitoring, and 

submittal of license termination 

information. These mandatory 

requirements are needed to protect 

occupationally exposed individuals 

from undue risks of excessive exposure 

to ionizing radiation and to protect the 

health and safety of the public. 

Submit, by February 2, 2015, 

comments that address the following 

questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection be minimized, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology? 

The public may examine and 

purchase copies of the publiclyavailable documents, including the draft 

supporting statement, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

OMB clearance requests are available at 

the NRC’s Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ 

public-involve/doc-comment/omb/. 

The document will be available on the 

NRC’s home page site for 60 days after 

the signature date of this notice. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Comments submitted should 

reference Docket No. NRC–2014–0245. 

You may submit your comments by any 

of the following methods. Electronic 

comments go to http://

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. NRC–2014–0245. Mail 

comments to NRC Clearance Officer, 

Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Questions about the information 

collection requirements may be directed 

to the NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine 

Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, by telephone at 301– 

415–6258, or by email to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of November, 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28246 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0250] 

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 4 amendment 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 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 nonsafeguards 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 publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0250. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

within 60 days, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. 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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 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/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass 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 cyclespecific basis consistent with the criteria 

accepted by the NRC. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

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, safetyrelated 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, safetyrelated 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 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 publiclyavailable 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

1While a request for hearing or petition to 

intervene in this proceeding must comply with the 

filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ 

the initial request to access SUNSI under these 

procedures should be submitted as described in this 

paragraph. 

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 online 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 NonSafeguards 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 71457 

2Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 

be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline 

for the receipt of the written access request. 

3Requesters should note that the filing 

requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC 

staff determinations (because they must be served 

on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

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/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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

Day Event/activity 

A + 60 .. (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28062 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0255] 

Review of Security Exemptions/

License Amendment Requests for 

Decommissioning Nuclear Power 

Plants 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft interim staff guidance; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is soliciting public 

comment on its draft Interim Staff 

Guidance (ISG) NSIR/DSP–ISG–03, 

‘‘Review of Security Exemptions/

License Amendment Requests for 

Decommissioning Nuclear Power 

Plants.’’ This document would provide 

guidance for NRC staff to ensure clear 

and consistent reviews of a licensee’s 

request for licensing actions and 

amendments, the use of alternative 

measures, and requests for exemption 

from security regulations for nuclear 

power reactors after permanent 

cessation of plant operations. 

DATES: Submit comments by January 8, 

2015. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

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–2014–0255. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individuals 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: 

Douglas Garner, Office of Nuclear 

Security and Incident Response, 

telephone: 301–287–0929, email: 

Douglas.Garner@nrc.gov; Margaret 

Cervera, Office of Nuclear Security and 

Incident Response, telephone: 301–287– 

3659, email: Margaret.Cervera@nrc.gov; 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0255 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information regarding 

this document. 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–2014–0255. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The draft 

ISG is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14294A170. 

• 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– 

0255 in the subject line of 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 into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

Currently, the power reactor physical 

security requirements in Part 73 of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) and the NRC security orders 

that apply to licensees of operating 

nuclear power reactors also apply to 

decommissioning power reactor 

licensees, since the 10 CFR part 50 

license is retained after permanent 

cessation of operations and removal of 

fuel from the reactor vessel. The NRC 

recognizes that licensees that have 

permanently ceased operations and 

have no fuel in the reactor vessel 

present a significantly reduced risk to 

public health and safety than operating 

reactors. Because of the lower 

comparative risk from a 

decommissioning power reactor, 

licensees typically make a case for 

exemptions on the basis that the 

application of a specific regulation in 

the particular circumstance of 

decommissioning plants is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the regulations and orders. 

Licensees have historically used the 

NRC’s existing license amendment and 

exemption processes to propose tailored 

security requirements for site-specific 

conditions at a decommissioning 

facility. Licensees must follow the 

process outlined in 10 CFR 73.5 when 

applying for exemptions from security 

regulations. 

This draft ISG would provide 

guidance to NRC staff in processing 

exemption requests and license 

amendments from the security 

requirements for nuclear power reactors 

that are undergoing the process of 

decommissioning. Use of this draft ISG 

would result in consistent and timely 

reviews of requests for exemption from 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES