[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19396-19405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06784]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0054]


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 six amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Columbia Generating Station; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1; South Texas Project, Units 
1 and 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3; and Wolf Creek 
Generating Station. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to 
determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration. In 
addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-
safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 8, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 9, 2014. Any potential party as defined in Sec.  
2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must 
request document access by April 18, 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-2014-0054. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0054 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0054.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access 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 [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document 
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time 
that a document is referenced.
     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-2014-0054 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 you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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

[[Page 19397]]

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.

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 in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. 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.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. 
The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment.

[[Page 19398]]

III. 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 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], 
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request 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/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 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

[[Page 19399]]

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 
[email protected].

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13316A009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.5 for the Low-Pressure Core Spray 
(LPCS) and Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) pump flows.
    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 change would lower the required LPCI and LPCS flow 
rates in SR 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.5. The requested changes do not serve 
as initiators of any Columbia accident previously evaluated. The 
existing ECCS-LOCA [emergency core cooling system--loss-of-coolant 
accident] fuel analysis of record utilizes reduced analytical flow 
rates that bound the proposed TS LPCI and LPCS flow rates. The 
analysis demonstrates compliance with the ECCS acceptance criteria 
in 10 CFR 50.46. The new minimum ECCS flow containment analysis also 
utilizes reduced analytical flow rates that bound the proposed TS 
LPCI and LPCS flow rates. This analysis demonstrates that the 
results of the analysis do not exceed the design values specified in 
the FSAR [final safety analysis report], which is consistent with 
the acceptance criteria specified in SRP [Standard Review Plan, 
NUREG-0800] 6.2.1.1.C. The accident probabilities are unaffected and 
the consequences remain unchanged.
    Therefore, there is no 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 analyzed?
    Response: No.
    There are no postulated hazards, new or different, contained in 
this amendment. Analysis has determined that these changes have been 
bounded by previous evaluations.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 changes lower the TS SR flows for LPCI and LPCS by 
3 [percent] and 2 [percent], respectively. The analytical values for 
the LPCI and LPCS flows were reduced by 5 [percent] and 10 
[percent], respectively, to ensure no margin of safety was impacted. 
To ensure a bounding calculation, the minimum ECCS flow containment 
analysis was performed with conservative assumptions and using NRC 
approved methodologies previously accepted for use at Columbia by 
the NRC. The proposed TS limiting flow rates provide adequate margin 
to the analytical limits accounting for worst-case instrument 
uncertainty and potential variation in supply voltage and frequency.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Luminant Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 4, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the 
letters dated November 21, 2013, and February 4, 2014, are available in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13338A436 and ML14051A531.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the physical protection license condition in the 
existing facility operating licenses and the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the Comanche Peak 
Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Units 1 and 2, CSP Implementation Schedule 
approved by the NRC staff by letter dated July 26, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML111780745).
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the CPNPP [Units 1 and 2], 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as 
set forth in the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule. 
The revision of the full implementation date for the CPNPP Cyber 
Security Plan does not involve modifications to any safety-related 
structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation 
schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing the CPNPP CSP. 
The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be 
implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to 
and including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby 
achieving high assurance that the facility's digital computer and 
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber 
attacks. The revision of the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how 
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The implementation of the CPNPP Cyber Security Plan does not 
introduce new equipment that could create a new or different kind of 
accident, and no new equipment failure modes are created. No new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment

[[Page 19400]]

structure) to limit the level of radiation to the public. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the way any safety-related SSC 
functions and does not alter the way the plant is operated. The 
Cyber Security Plan provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are 
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment does not 
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties 
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no 
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the 
above considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: August 5, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 24, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the 
letters dated August 5, 2013, and January 24, 2014, are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML13220A074 and ML14030A591.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the structural design basis for the reactor 
coolant system piping described in Section 4.3.6 of the Fort Calhoun 
Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. The amendment request is 
related to the leak-before-break (LBB) application for the reactor 
coolant system piping. To satisfy one of the commitments as part of its 
license renewal application, the licensee submitted a plant-specific 
LBB analysis before the period of extended operation, which began at 
midnight, August 9, 2013.
    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 overall performance of protection systems remains within the 
bounds of the accident analyses. The design of the reactor 
protective system (RPS) and engineered safety feature actuation 
system (ESFAS) are unaffected and these systems will continue to 
function consistent with their design basis. Design, material, and 
construction standards are maintained.
    At FCS, the bounding accident for pipe breaks is a large break 
loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA). The consequences of a LBLOCA have 
been previously evaluated and found acceptable. Since the attached 
leak-before-break (LBB) methodology verifies the integrity of 
reactor coolant system (RCS) piping, the probability of a previously 
evaluated accident is not increased. The application of the LBB 
methodology does not change the dose analysis associated with a 
LBLOCA, and therefore, does not affect the consequences of an 
accident. The proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or 
change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence 
evaluations in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced because of the proposed change. All systems, 
structures, and components (SSCs) required for the mitigation of an 
event remain capable of performing their design function. The 
proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-related SSC and 
does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related SSC. The methods by which safety-related SSCs perform their 
safety functions are unchanged. This amendment will not affect the 
normal method of power operation or change any operating parameters.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the 
margin of safety described in the FCS Technical Specifications or 
USAR. The proposed amendment does not involve a change to any of the 
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system or the containment building). The operability requirements of 
the Technical Specifications are consistent with the initial 
condition assumptions of the safety analyses. The proposed change 
does not affect any Technical Specification limiting conditions for 
operation (LCO) requirements.
    This proposed amendment uses LBB technology combined with 
leakage monitoring to show that it is acceptable to exclude the 
dynamic effects of pipe ruptures resulting from postulated breaks in 
the reactor coolant primary loop piping from consideration in the 
structural design basis for the period of extended operation. The 
attached Westinghouse report demonstrates that the LBB margins 
discussed in NUREG-1061, Volume 3 are satisfied.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: January 6, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14035A075.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, 
``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required 
actions and allowed outage times for inoperable reactor trip breakers. 
The proposed changes would revise the required actions to enhance plant 
reliability by reducing exposure to unnecessary shutdowns and increase 
operational flexibility by allowing more time to make required repairs 
for inoperable reactor trip breakers consistent with allowed outage 
times for associated logic trains. No modifications to setpoint 
actuations, trip setpoint, surveillance requirements or channel 
response that would affect the safety analyses are associated with the 
proposed changes.
    The proposed changes are consistent with requirements generically 
approved as part of NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications, 
Westinghouse Plants, Revision 4 (TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System 
Instrumentation'') (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1431/). Justification for the proposed changes is based 
on Westinghouse Topical Report,

[[Page 19401]]

WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS 
[Reactor Trip System] and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System] Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and 
Completion Times,'' March 2003 (not publicly available).
    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 overall reactor trip breaker performance will remain within 
the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no 
hardware changes are proposed. The reactor trip breakers will 
continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design 
basis.
    The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident 
initiators, and therefore do 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 changes 
will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in 
the radiological consequence evaluations in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    The determination that the results of the proposed changes are 
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluation (issued by 
letter dated December 20, 2002) prepared for WCAP-15376-P-A, ``Risk-
Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals 
and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and Completion Times.'' Implementation 
of the proposed changes will result in an insignificant risk impact.
    Applicability of these conclusions has been verified through 
plant-specific reviews and implementation of the generic analysis 
results in accordance with the respective NRC Safety Evaluation 
conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not result in a change in the manner in 
which the Reactor Trip Breakers provide plant protection. The 
proposed changes do not change the response of the plant to any 
accidents. No design changes are associated with the proposed 
changes.
    The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are 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 changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria as 
stated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report are not impacted 
by these changes. Redundant Reactor Trip Breaker features and 
diverse trip features for each Reactor Trip Breaker are maintained. 
All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator 
actions credited in the accident analyses are unaffected by the 
proposed change. The proposed changes will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
changes should enhance plant reliability by reducing exposure to 
unnecessary shutdowns and increase operational flexibility by 
allowing more time to make required repairs for inoperable reactor 
trip breakers. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and 
meets the acceptance criteria contained in NRC Regulatory Guides 
1.174 and 1.177.
    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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14015A403.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The TVA, in 
its letter dated August 30, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13268A421), 
identified the Alternative Leakage Treatment (ALT) Pathway as being in 
a nonconforming/degraded condition. The TVA's corrective actions that 
were outlined to change the ALT Pathway included modification of 
licensing documents to show lower individual and total leakage rates 
through the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs). The proposed license 
amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.6.1.3, ``Primary 
Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs).'' The amendments would decrease 
the leakage rate through each MSIV and the combined leakage rate 
through all four main steam lines.
    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 change continues to use the main steam drain lines 
to direct MSIV leakage to the main condenser, although at a lower 
rate than is currently allowed. Therefore, the ALT Pathway takes 
advantage of the large volume of the steam lines and condenser to 
provide holdup and plate-out fission products that may leak through 
the closed MSIVs. Additionally, the main steam lines, main steam 
drain piping, and the main condenser continue to be used to mitigate 
the consequences of an accident to limit potential doses below the 
limits prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion area, 
10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and in 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel.
    The plant-specific radiological analysis has been re-evaluated 
to ensure that the effects of the increase in the condenser bypass 
flow and proposed decrease in MSIV leakage continues to maintain the 
acceptance criteria in terms of offsite doses and main control room 
dose. The analysis results comply with the dose limits prescribed in 
10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) 
for the low population zone, and in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) for 
control room personnel.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to 
plant safety related systems, structures, and components (SSCs) or 
alter the modes of plant operation in a manner that is outside the 
bounds of the current alternate leakage treatment pathway. Because 
the safety and design requirements continue to be met and the 
integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure boundary is 
not challenged, no new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 
accident initiators are created, and there will

[[Page 19402]]

be no effect on the accident mitigating systems in a manner that 
would significantly degrade the plant's response to an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change to Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.10, to 
decrease the allowable MSIV leakage, and increase the condenser 
bypass flow due to only crediting the passive ALT Pathway, does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
allowable leak rate specified for the MSIVs is used to quantify a 
maximum amount of leakage assumed to bypass containment. The results 
of the re-analysis supporting these changes were evaluated against 
the dose limits contained in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion 
area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel. Margin relative to the 
regulatory limits is maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: August 13, 2013, as supplemented January 
28, 2014. Publicly-available versions of the letters dated August 13, 
2013, and January 28, 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML13247A076 and ML14035A224.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Safety Limits 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs;'' 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.5, ``Loss of Power (LOP) 
Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation;'' TS 3.4.1, ``RCS 
Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) 
Limits;'' TS 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs);'' and 
Specification 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to 
replace the existing Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) 
methodology for performing core design, non-loss-of-coolant-accident 
(non-LOCA) and LOCA safety analyses (for Post-LOCA Subcriticality and 
Cooling only) with standard Westinghouse developed and NRC-approved 
analysis methodologies. As part of the transition to the generic 
Westinghouse NRC-approved methodologies, instrumentation setpoint and 
control uncertainty calculations were performed based on the current 
Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology. This amendment request also includes 
the adoption of Option A of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
change traveler TSTF-493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of 
Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System Setpoint] 
Functions.'' In addition, the proposed amendment request revises the TS 
definitions of DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131, and DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, and 
Specification 5.5.12, ``Explosive Gas and Storage Tank Radioactivity 
Monitoring Program,'' to revise the Wolf Creek Generating Station 
(WCGS) licensing basis by adopting the Alternative Source Term (AST) 
radiological analysis methodology in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67, 
``Accident source term.'' This amendment request represents a full 
scope implementation of the AST as described in NRC Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating 
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' Revision 0 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML003716792). In conjunction with the full scope 
implementation of the AST, the proposed amendment request includes 
changes to adopt TSTF-51-A, Revision 2, ``Revise Containment 
Requirements during Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations.'' 
The adoption of TSTF-51-A results in changes to TS 3.3.6, ``Containment 
Purge Isolation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.7, ``Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System (CREVS) Actuation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.8, 
``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation Instrumentation;'' TS 
3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS);'' TS 
3.7.11, ``Control Room Air Conditioning System (CRACS);'' TS 3.7.13, 
``Emergency Exhaust System (EES);'' and TS 3.9.4, ``Containment 
Penetrations.''
    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 changes associated with the implementation of 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-493-A adds test 
requirements to TS instrumentation functions related to those 
variables that have a significant safety function to ensure that 
instruments will function as required to initiate protective systems 
or actuate mitigating systems as assumed in the safety analysis. The 
proposed changes do not impact the condition or performance of any 
plant structure, system or component. The new core design, non-loss-
of-coolant-accident (non-LOCA) and Post-LOCA Subcriticality and 
Cooling analyses and the proposed Nominal Trip Setpoints (NTSPs) 
will continue to ensure the applicable safety limits are not 
exceeded during any conditions of normal operation, for design basis 
accidents (DBAs) as well as any Anticipated Operational Occurrence 
(AOO). The methods used to perform the affected safety analyses, 
including the setpoint methodology are based on methods previously 
found acceptable by the NRC and conform to applicable regulatory 
guidance. Application of these NRC approved methods will continue to 
ensure that acceptable operating limits are established to protect 
the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and fuel cladding 
during normal operation, DBAs, and any AOOs. The TS changes 
associated with the implementation of TSTF-493-A will provide 
additional assurance that the instrumentation setpoints are 
maintained consistent with the setpoint methodology to ensure the 
required automatic trips and safety feature actuations occur such 
that the safety limits are not exceeded. The requested TS changes, 
including those changes proposed to conform to the new methodologies 
and TSTF-493-A do not involve any operational changes that could 
affect system reliability, performance, or the possibility of 
operator error. The proposed changes do not affect any postulated 
accident precursors, or accident mitigation systems, and do not 
introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
    Adoptions of the AST and pursuant TS changes (including those 
changes resulting from the adoption of TSTF-51-A) and the changes to 
the atmospheric dispersion factors have no impact to the initiation 
of DBAs. Once the occurrence of an accident has been postulated, the 
new accident source term and atmospheric dispersion factors are an 
input to analyses that evaluate the radiological consequences. The 
proposed changes do not involve a revision to the design or manner 
in which the facility is operated that could increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the 
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
    The structures, systems and components affected by the proposed 
changes act to

[[Page 19403]]

mitigate the consequences of accidents. Based on the AST analyses, 
the proposed changes do revise certain performance requirements; 
however, the proposed changes do not involve a revision to the 
parameters or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of 
an accident previously discussed in Chapter 15 of the USAR. Plant 
specific radiological analyses have been performed using the AST 
methodology and new atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on the 
results of these analyses, it has been demonstrated that the control 
room dose consequences of the limiting events considered in the 
analyses meet the regulatory guidance provided for use with the AST, 
and the offsite doses are within acceptable limits. This guidance is 
presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves a physical alteration of the plant, 
i.e., a change in instrument setpoint. The proposed change does not 
create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new 
limiting single failures. Additionally the proposed change does 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 change does not adversely 
affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, 
and components important to safety. The proposed change does not 
involve changing any accident initiators.
    Implementation of AST and the associated proposed TS changes and 
new atmospheric dispersion factors do not alter or involve any 
design basis accident initiators and do not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will 
be installed). The proposed change does not adversely affect the 
design function or mode of operations of structures, systems and 
components in the facility important to safety. The structures, 
systems and components important to safety will continue to operate 
in the same manner as before after the AST is implemented, 
therefore, no new failure modes are created by this proposed change. 
The AST change does not involve changing any accident initiators.
    For the fuel handling accident, the adoption of TSTF-51-A 
permits the elimination of the TS requirements for certain 
Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) systems to be OPERABLE after 
sufficient radioactive decay. However, after sufficient radioactive 
decay, no credit is taken for these ESF systems to meet the 
applicable regulatory dose limits in the event of a fuel handling 
accident. Therefore, no structures, systems and components important 
to safety are adversely affected by the proposed change. The 
proposed change resulting from the adoption of TSTF-51-A does not 
involve changing any accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 methodology changes and implementation of TSTF-493-
A will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the 
function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect the design and performance of the 
structures, systems, and components important to safety. Therefore, 
the required safety functions will continue to be performed 
consistent with the assumptions of the applicable safety analyses. 
In addition, operation in accordance with the proposed TS change 
will continue to ensure that the previously evaluated accidents will 
be mitigated as analyzed. The NRC approved safety analysis 
methodologies include restrictions on the choice of inputs, the 
degree of conservatism inherent in the calculations, and specified 
event acceptance criteria. Analyses performed in accordance with 
these methodologies will not result in adverse effects on the 
regulated margin of safety. As such, there is no significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The results of the AST analyses are subject to the acceptance 
criteria in 10 CFR 50.67. The analyzed events have been carefully 
selected, and the analyses supporting these changes have been 
performed using approved methodologies to ensure that analyzed 
events are bounding and safety margin has not been reduced. The dose 
consequences of these limiting events are within the acceptance 
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. Thus, by meeting 
the applicable regulatory limits for AST, there is no significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. New control room atmospheric 
dispersion factors (x/Qs) based on site specific meteorological 
data, calculated in accordance with the guidance of RG 1.194, 
utilizes more recent data and improved calculation methodologies.
    For the fuel handling accident, the adoption of TSTF-51-A allows 
the elimination of the TS requirements for certain ESF systems to be 
OPERABLE, after sufficient radioactive decay. However, after 
sufficient radioactive decay, no credit is taken for these ESF 
systems to meet the applicable regulatory dose limits in the event 
of a fuel handling accident. Therefore, no structures, systems and 
components important to safety are adversely affected by the 
proposed change. With the proposed changes, the requirements of the 
TS will reflect that after sufficient radioactive decay, the water 
level and decay time inputs will be the primary success path for 
mitigating a fuel handling accident. Thus, the TS will continue to 
provide adequate assurance of safe operation during fuel handling. 
As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

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.

[[Page 19404]]

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 [email protected] and 
[email protected], respectively.\1\ The request must include the 
following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this 
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's 
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice;
    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description 
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed 
by the action identified in C.(1); and
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of 
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis 
and specificity for a proffered contention.
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in 
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification 
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the 
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access 
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited 
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or 
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who 
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is 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) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007), apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely 
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying 
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions 
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for 
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March, 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

   Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
                           in this Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Day                             Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                            hearing and opportunity to petition for
                            leave to intervene, including order with
                            instructions for access requests.
10.......................  Deadline for submitting requests for access
                            to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
                            Information (SUNSI) with information:
                            supporting the standing of a potential party
                            identified by name and address; describing
                            the need for the information in order for
                            the potential party to participate
                            meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.......................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                            intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
                            of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
                            formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                            (+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
                            +7 petitioner/requestor reply).

[[Page 19405]]

 
20.......................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
                            staff informs the requester of the staff's
                            determination whether the request for access
                            provides a reasonable basis to believe
                            standing can be established and shows need
                            for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
                            to the proceeding whose interest independent
                            of the proceeding would be harmed by the
                            release of the information.) If NRC staff
                            makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
                            likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
                            document processing (preparation of
                            redactions or review of redacted documents).
25.......................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                            likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                            petitioner/requester to file a motion
                            seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
                            denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
                            access determination with the presiding
                            officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
                            other designated officer, as appropriate).
                            If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
                            deadline for any party to the proceeding
                            whose interest independent of the proceeding
                            would be harmed by the release of the
                            information to file a motion seeking a
                            ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                            access.
30.......................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                            reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.......................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                            need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                            complete information processing and file
                            motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                            Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                            licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
                            for SUNSI.
A........................  If access granted: issuance of presiding
                            officer or other designated officer decision
                            on motion for protective order for access to
                            sensitive information (including schedule
                            for providing access and submission of
                            contentions) or decision reversing a final
                            adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3....................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
                            Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
                            consistent with decision issuing the
                            protective order.
A + 28...................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                            development depends upon access to SUNSI.
                            However, if more than 25 days remain between
                            the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
                            the information and the deadline for filing
                            all other contentions (as established in the
                            notice of hearing or opportunity for
                            hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
                            contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53...................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                            contentions whose development depends upon
                            access to SUNSI.
A + 60...................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                            reply to answers.
>A + 60..................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-06784 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P