[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32760-32767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12402]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0113]


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 three amendment requests. The amendment 
requests are for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2; 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 July 7, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 5, 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 June 16, 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-2014-0113. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. 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-06-44M, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0113 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0113.
     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 (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

[[Page 32761]]

     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-2014-0113 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 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 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 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.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/

[[Page 32762]]

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.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (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 request (1) a digital 
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    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 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are

[[Page 32763]]

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 
[email protected].
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13357A749.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Cyber 
Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth 
in the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature and does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. The change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, 
add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents.
    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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature and does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature and does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. Plant safety margins are 
established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting 
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical 
specifications and no modifications have been made to these plant 
characteristics due to the proposed change. In addition, the 
milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no 
substantive impact because other measures have been taken which 
provide adequate protection during this period of time.

    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, LA 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: November 1, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13316B107, ML13316B109, and 
ML13316B110.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment includes changes to the NMP2 Technical Specifications (TSs) 
necessary to: (1) Implement the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit 
Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) expanded operating domain; (2) change the 
stability solution to Detect and Suppress Solution--Confirmation 
Density (DSS-CD); (3) use the TRACG04 analysis code; (4) increase the 
isotopic enrichment of boron-10 in the sodium pentaborate solution 
utilized in the Standby Liquid Control System (SLS); and (5) increase 
the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for two 
recirculation loops in operation.
    The following is a list of the proposed changes to the NMP2 TSs:
     Revise Safety Limit (SL) 2.1.1.2 by increasing the SLMCPR 
for two recirculation loops in operation from >=1.07 to >=1.09.
     Revise the acceptance criterion in TS 3.1.7, ``Standby 
Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.7.7 by 
increasing the discharge pressure from >=1,327 pounds per square inch 
gauge (psig) to >=1,335 psig.
     Revise the acceptance criterion in TS SR 3.1.7.10 by 
increasing the sodium pentaborate boron-10 enrichment requirement from 
>=25 atom percent to >=92 atom percent, and make a corresponding change 
in TS Figure 3.1.7-1, ``Sodium Pentaborate Solution Volume/
Concentration Requirements.''
     Revise TS Figure 3.1.7-1 to account for the decrease in 
the minimum volume of the SLS tank from 4,558.6 gallons and 4,288 
gallons at sodium pentaborate concentrations of 13.6% and 14.4%, 
respectively, to 1,600 gallons and 1,530 gallons at sodium pentaborate 
concentrations of 13.6% and 14.4%, respectively.
     Change the Required Actions for Condition F of TS 3.3.1.1, 
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation.''
     Change Condition G of TS 3.3.1.1.

[[Page 32764]]

     Add new Conditions J and K to TS 3.3.1.1.
     Correct an editorial error in Note 3 to TS SR 3.3.1.1.13 
(i.e., ``ORRM'' is changed to ``OPRM'' [Oscillation Power Range 
Monitor]).
     Eliminate TS SR 3.3.1.1.16 and references to it in TS 
Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation.''
     Change the allowable value (AV) for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, 
Function 2.b, Average Power Range Monitor (APRM)--Flow Biased Simulated 
Thermal Power (STP)--Upscale from ``<=0.55W + 60.5% [Rated Thermal 
Power] RTP and <=115.5% RTP'' to ``<=0.61W + 63.4% RTP and <=115.5% 
RTP.''
     Add a new note to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, Function 2.b, that 
requires the Flow Biased Simulated Thermal Power--Upscale scram 
setpoint to be reset to the values defined by the Core Operating Limits 
Report (COLR) to implement the Automated Backup Stability Protection 
(BSP) Scram Region in accordance with Required Action F.2.1 of TS 
3.3.1.1.
     Add a new note to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, Function 2.e, 
Oscillation Power Range Monitor (OPRM)--Upscale to denote that 
following implementation of DSS-CD, DSS-CD is not required to be armed 
while in the DSS-CD Armed Region during the first reactor startup and 
during the first controlled shutdown that passes completely through the 
DSS-CD Armed Region. However, DSS-CD is considered operable and capable 
of automatically arming for operation at recirculation drive flow rates 
above the DSS-CD Armed Region.
     Change the mode of applicability for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, 
Function 2.e, OPRM-Upscale from Mode 1 to >=18% RTP.
     Change the allowable value for TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, 
Function 2.e, from ``As specified in the COLR'' to ``NA [not 
applicable].''
     Add a prohibition to TS Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating,'' that prohibits 
operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) 
domain or MELLLA+ expanded operating domain as defined in the COLR when 
in operation with a single recirculation loop.
     Add Required Action B.2 to TS 3.4.1 to identify that 
intentional operation in the MELLLA domain or MELLLA+ domain as defined 
in the COLR is prohibited when a recirculation loop is declared ``not 
in operation'' due to a recirculation loop flow mismatch not within 
limits.
     Revise TS 5.6.5.a.4 to replace ``Reactor Protection System 
Instrumentation Setpoint for the OPRM--Upscale Function Allowable Value 
for Specification 3.3.1.1'' with ``The Manual Backup Stability 
Protection (BSP) Scram Region (Region I), the Manual BSP Controlled 
Entry Region (Region II), the modified APRM Simulated Thermal Power--
High setpoints used in the OPRM (Function 2.e), Automated BSP Scram 
Region, and the BSP Boundary for Specification 3.3.1.1.''
     Add TS 5.6.8, ``OPRM Report,'' to define the contents of 
the report required by new Required Action F.2.2 of TS 3.3.1.1.
    The NRC approval of the requested operating domain expansion will 
allow NMP2 to implement operational changes that will increase 
operational flexibility for power maneuvering, compensate for fuel 
depletion, and maintain efficient power distribution in the reactor 
core without the need for more frequent rod pattern changes. MELLLA+ 
supports operation of NMP2 at Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) of 
3,988 Megawatts--Thermal (MWth) with core flow as low as 85% 
of rated core flow. By operating in the MELLLA+ domain, a significantly 
lower number of control rod movements will be required than in the 
present operating domain. This represents a significant improvement in 
operating flexibility. It also provides safer operation, because 
reducing the number of control rod manipulations: (a) Minimizes the 
likelihood of fuel failures, and (b) reduces the likelihood of 
accidents initiated by reactor maneuvers required to achieve an 
operating condition where control rods can be withdrawn.
    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) Will the change 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 implementing the MELLLA+ 
operating domain and DSS-CD stability solution, because NMP2 
continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria 
established for plant equipment. A SLS failure is not a precursor of 
any previously evaluated accident in the NMP2 USAR [updated safety 
analysis report]. The increase to the SLMCPR for two recirculation 
loops in operation does not increase the probability of an evaluated 
accident. Consequently, there is no change in the probability of a 
[***] previously evaluated accident.
    The spectrum of postulated transients was investigated and shown 
to remain within the NRC approved acceptance limits. Fuel integrity 
is maintained by meeting existing design and regulatory limits. 
Further, a probabilistic risk assessment demonstrates that the 
calculated core damage frequency and the large early release 
frequency do not significantly change due to operation in the 
MELLLA+ domain.
    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 suppression pool 
temperature remains acceptable.
    The SLS is used to mitigate the consequences of an Anticipated 
Transient Without SCRAM (ATWS) special event and is used to limit 
the radiological dose during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The 
proposed changes do not affect the capability of the SLS to perform 
these two functions in accordance with the assumptions of the 
associated analyses. The ATWS evaluation with the proposed changes 
incorporated demonstrated that all the ATWS acceptance criteria are 
met. The ability of the SLS to mitigate radiological dose in the 
event of a LOCA by maintaining suppression pool pH >=7.0 is not 
affected by these changes.
    This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops 
in operation does not result in any modification to the design or 
operation of the systems that are used in mitigation of accidents. 
Limits have been established, consistent with NRC approved methods, 
to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and 
accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed change to the SLMCPR 
for two recirculation loops in operation continues to conservatively 
establish this safety limit such that the fuel is protected during 
normal operation and during any plant transients or anticipated 
operational occurrences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    (2) Will the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Equipment that could be affected by implementing the MELLLA+ 
operating domain and DSS-CD stability solution was evaluated. No new 
operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario, 
or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of 
accident considerations was evaluated and no new or different kind 
of accident was identified. The MELLLA+ operating domain and DSS-CD 
stability solution use developed technology and apply it within the 
capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment in 
accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC

[[Page 32765]]

approved codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event 
precursor was identified.
    The long-term stability solution is being changed from the 
currently approved Option III solution to DSS-CD. DSS-CD is designed 
to identify the power oscillation upon inception and initiate 
control rod insertion (scram) to terminate the oscillations prior to 
any significant amplitude growth. DSS-CD is based on the same 
hardware design as Option III. However, it introduces an enhanced 
detection algorithm that detects the inception of power oscillations 
and generates an earlier power suppression trip signal exclusively 
based on successive period confirmation recognition. The existing 
Option III algorithms are retained (with generic setpoints) to 
provide defense-in-depth protection for unanticipated reactor 
instability events.
    Structures, systems, and components (SSCs) previously required 
for the mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their 
intended design functions. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect safety-related systems or components and do not challenge the 
performance or integrity of any safety-related system. The physical 
changes to the SLS are limited to the increase in the boron-10 
enrichment of the sodium pentaborate solution in the SLS storage 
tank, the corresponding decrease in the net sodium pentaborate 
solution volume requirement in the SLS storage tank, the increase in 
the SLS pump discharge pressure acceptance criterion, and the 
associated instrumentation changes. The proposed changes do not 
otherwise affect the design or operation of the SLS.
    This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops 
in operation does not result in any modification to the design or 
operation of the systems that are used in the mitigation of 
accidents. The proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation 
loops in operation assures that safety criteria are maintained.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current system 
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an 
accident or malfunction of a different kind than was 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) Will the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    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 SSCs, 
including the reactor coolant pressure boundary, will remain within 
their design specifications for design basis event categories. No 
NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded.
    Comprehensive analyses of the proposed changes have concluded 
that relevant design and safety acceptance criteria will be met 
without a significant reduction in margins of safety. The analyses 
have demonstrated that the NMP2 SSCs are capable of safely 
performing at MELLLA+ conditions. The analyses identified and 
defined the major input parameters to the Nuclear Steam Supply 
System (NSSS), analyzed NSSS design transients, and evaluated the 
capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/Balance of Plant (BOP) 
interfaces, NSSS control systems, and NSSS and BOP components, as 
appropriate. Radiological consequences of design basis events remain 
within regulatory limits and are not increased significantly. The 
analyses confirmed that NSSS and BOP SSCs are capable of achieving 
MELLLA+ conditions without significant reduction in margins of 
safety.
    Analyses have shown that the integrity of primary fission 
product barriers will not be significantly affected as a result of 
change in the operating domain. Calculated loads on SSCs important 
to safety have been shown to remain within design allowables with 
MELLLA+ conditions for all design basis event categories. Plant 
response to transients and accidents do not result in exceeding 
acceptance criteria. As appropriate, the evaluations that 
demonstrate acceptability of MELLLA+ have been performed using 
methods that have either been reviewed and approved by the NRC 
staff, or that are in compliance with regulatory review guidance and 
standards established for maintaining adequate margins of safety. 
These evaluations demonstrate that there are no significant 
reductions in the margins of safety.
    The SLS is used to mitigate the consequences of an ATWS event 
and is used to limit the radiological dose during a LOCA. The 
proposed changes do not affect the capability of the SLS to perform 
these two functions in accordance with the assumptions of the 
associated analyses. The ATWS evaluation with the proposed changes 
incorporated demonstrated that all the ATWS acceptance criteria are 
met. The ability of the SLS to mitigate radiological dose in the 
event of a LOCA by maintaining suppression pool pH >= 7.0 is not 
affected by these changes.
    This proposed change to the SLMCPR for two recirculation loops 
in operation provides a margin of safety by ensuring that no more 
than 0.1% of fuel rods are expected to be in boiling transition if 
the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed change will ensure the 
appropriate level of fuel protection is maintained. Additionally, 
operational limits are established based on the proposed SLMCPR to 
ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated during all modes of 
operation. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criteria are 
met (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience 
transition boiling during normal operation as well as anticipated 
operational occurrences).
    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 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Gautam Sen, Senior Counsel, Constellation 
Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 200C, 
Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
    Date of amendment request: January 23, 2014 (not publicly 
available). A publicly-available redacted version dated March 31, 2014, 
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14097A088.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 
No. 8 completion date and the physical protection license condition.
    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 to the WCNOC [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 
Corporation] Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied 
upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has 
no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed 
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant

[[Page 32766]]

modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, 
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is 
administrative in nature, there is no change to these established 
safety margins.
    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

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas;

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York;

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

    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 [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.
    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

[[Page 32767]]

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 May, 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).
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. 2014-12402 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P