[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38573-38585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14880]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0138]
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 11 amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for River Bend Station, Unit 1; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1;
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2 (two amendment requests); Donald C. Cook Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Cooper Nuclear Station; Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3; and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2. 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 August 7, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 8, 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 July 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-2014-0138. 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-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela M. Baxter, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0138 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this document by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0138.
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 or 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.
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-2014-0138 in the subject line of your
[[Page 38574]]
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/
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
[[Page 38575]]
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 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 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
[[Page 38576]]
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 or 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station (RBS), Unit 1, West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14064A349.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would change the RBS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation
Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and revise the existing
operating license 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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) 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; (2) 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; and (3) has no
impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative
in nature.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The NRC staff has concluded the proposed change (1) 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; and (2) 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 and does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. In addition, the NRC staff has
concluded that the proposed change to the CSP Implementation
Schedule is administrative in nature.
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 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 delay of the full
implementation date for the CSP has no substantive impact because
other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection for
the plant during this period of time. Therefore, the NRC staff has
concluded that there is no change to established safety margins as a
result of this change. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that
the proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14008A081.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would change the GGNS Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and revise
the existing operating license 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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) 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; (2) 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; and (3) has no
impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative
in nature.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) does
not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the
[[Page 38577]]
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected; and (2) 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 and does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. In
addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change to
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature.
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 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 delay of the full
implementation date for the CSP has no substantive impact because
other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection for
the plant during this period of time. Therefore, the NRC staff has
concluded that there is no change to established safety margins as a
result of this change. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that
the proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature.
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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13354C045.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add an NRC approved topical report
reference to the list of analytical methods that are used to determine
the core operating limits for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Specifically, the
proposed change adds a reference to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-
16865-P-A, ``Westinghouse BWR ECCS Evaluation Model Updates: Supplement
4 to Code Description. Qualification and Application, Revision 1.''
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.
TS Section 5.6.5 lists NRC approved analytical methods used at
DNPS [Dresden Nuclear Power Station] and QCNPS [Quad Cities Nuclear
Power Station] to determine core operating limits. The proposed
change adds an NRC approved topical report reference to the list of
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5.
The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 will add a Westinghouse
methodology to determine the end of lower plenum flashing for
analysis of a BWR LOCA [boiling-water reactor loss-of-coolant
accident]. The proposed change will allow DNPS and QCNPS to use the
most current Westinghouse methodology for determination of the
APLHGR limits associated with TS 3.2.1, ``Average Planar Linear Heat
Generation Rate (APLHGR).''
The addition of an approved analytical method in TS Section
5.6.5 has no effect on any accident initiator or precursor
previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the
core is operated. The NRC approved method ensures that the analysis
output accurately models the predicted core behavior, has no effect
on the type or amount of radiation released, and has no effect on
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. Additionally,
the NRC approved method does not change any key core parameters that
influence any accident consequences. Thus, the proposed change does
not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The methodology conservatively establishes acceptable core
operating limits such that the consequences of previously analyzed
events are not increased.
The proposed change in the list of analytical methods does not
affect the ability of DNPS and QCNPS to successfully respond to
previously evaluated accidents and does not affect the radiological
assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, the radiological
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 does not affect the
performance of any DNPS and QCNPS structure, system or component
credited for mitigating any accident previously evaluated. The NRC
approved analytical methodology for evaluating the APLHGR limits
will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or
the response of the plant equipment to transient conditions. The
proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors,
modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will add a reference to the list of
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5 that can be used to determine
core operating limits. The new methodology has been previously
approved by the NRC and accurately establishes the appropriate
APLHGR limits. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits
or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated and does not
change the requirements governing operation or availability of
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not impact the level of
protection currently provided.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: July 16, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13199A037.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise technical specifications (TS) 4.3.1 to include
the use of neutron absorbing spent fuel pool
[[Page 38578]]
rack inserts (i.e., NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts) for the purpose
of criticality control in the spent fuel pools (SFPs) at QCNPS, Units 1
and 2. This change is being requested due to degradation of the
Boraflex neutron absorbing material currently being used in the QCNPS
SFPs.
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 revises Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1
to permit installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts in
spent fuel pool storage rack cells. The change is necessary to
ensure that, with continued Boraflex degradation over time, the
effective neutron multiplication factor, keff, is less
than or equal to 0.95, if the spent fuel pool is fully flooded with
unborated water as required by 10 CFR 50.68, ``Criticality accident
requirements.'' Because the proposed change pertains only to the
spent fuel pool, only those accidents that are related to movement
and storage of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool could
potentially be affected by the proposed change.
The installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does not
result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously analyzed because there are no changes in the manner in
which spent fuel is handled, moved, or stored in the rack cells. The
probability that a fuel assembly would be dropped is unchanged by
the installation of the rack inserts. These events involve failures
of administrative controls, human performance, and equipment
failures that are unaffected by the presence or absence of Boraflex
and the rack inserts.
The installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does not
result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident
previously analyzed because there is no change to the fuel
assemblies that provide the source term used in calculating the
radiological consequences of a fuel handling accident. In addition,
consistent with the current design, only one fuel assembly will be
moved at a time. Thus, the consequences of dropping a fuel assembly
onto any other fuel assembly or other structure remain bounded by
the previously analyzed fuel handling accident. The proposed change
does not affect the effectiveness of the other engineered design
features, such as filtration systems, that limit the offsite dose
consequences of a fuel handling accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the QCNPS, Units 1
and 2 spent fuel pools is a normal activity for which QCNPS has been
designed and licensed. As part of assuring that this normal activity
can be performed without endangering the public health and safety,
the ability to safely accommodate different possible accidents in
the spent fuel pool have been previously analyzed. These analyses
address accidents such as radiological releases due to dropping a
fuel assembly; and potential inadvertent criticality due to
misloading a fuel assembly. The proposed spent fuel storage
configuration utilizing the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does
not change the method of fuel movement or spent fuel storage and
does not create the potential for a new accident. The proposed
change also allows for the continued use of spent fuel pool storage
rack cells with degraded Boraflex within those spent fuel pool
storage rack cells; however, no credit is taken for the Boraflex.
The rack inserts are passive devices. These devices, when inside
a spent fuel storage rack cell, perform the same function as the
previously licensed Boraflex neutron absorber panels in that cell.
The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts do not add any limiting
structural loads or adversely affect the removal of decay heat from
the assemblies. No change in total heat load in the spent fuel pool
is being made. The insert devices will maintain their design
function over the life of the spent fuel pool. The existing fuel
handling accident, which assumes the drop of a fuel assembly and
refueling mast, bounds the drop of a rack insert and/or rack insert
installation tool. This proposed change does not create the
possibility of misloading an assembly into a spent fuel storage rack
cell.
Based on the above information, 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts are being installed to
restore the spent fuel pool criticality margin, compensating for the
degraded Boraflex neutron absorber. The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack
inserts, once approved and credited, will replace the existing
Boraflex as the credited neutron absorber for controlling spent fuel
pool reactivity, even though the Boraflex absorber will remain in
place.
QCNPS TS 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' Specification 4.3.1.1.a requires
the spent fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron
multiplication factor, keff, less than or equal to 0.95
when fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance
for uncertainties. Therefore, for spent fuel pool criticality
considerations, the required safety margin is 5 percent.
The proposed change ensures, as verified by the associated
criticality analysis, that keff continues to be less than
or equal to 0.95, thus preserving the required safety margin of 5
percent.
In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel
assembly, considering the installed NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack
inserts, remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to a
fuel handling accident is unaffected by the addition of the inserts
in the spent fuel pool storage cells. The proposed change also does
not increase the capacity of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools
beyond the current capacity of 3,657 and 3,897 fuel assemblies
respectively.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13354C045.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add an NRC approved topical report
reference to the list of analytical methods that are used to determine
the core operating limits for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the
proposed change adds a reference to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-
16865-P-A, ``Westinghouse BWR ECCS [boiling-water reactor emergency
core cooling system] Evaluation Model Updates: Supplement 4 to Code
Description. Qualification and Application, Revision 1.''
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.
[[Page 38579]]
TS Section 5.6.5 lists NRC approved analytical methods used at
DNPS [Dresden Nuclear Power Station] and QCNPS to determine core
operating limits. The proposed change adds an NRC approved topical
report reference to the list of analytical methods in TS Section
5.6.5.
The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 will add a Westinghouse
methodology to determine the end of lower plenum flashing for
analysis of a BWR LOCA [boiling-water reactor loss-of-coolant
accident]. The proposed change will allow DNPS and QCNPS to use the
most current Westinghouse methodology for determination of the
APLHGR limits associated with TS 3.2.1, ``Average Planar Linear Heat
Generation Rate (APLHGR).''
The addition of an approved analytical method in TS Section
5.6.5 has no effect on any accident initiator or precursor
previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the
core is operated. The NRC approved method ensures that the analysis
output accurately models the predicted core behavior, has no effect
on the type or amount of radiation released, and has no effect on
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. Additionally,
the NRC approved method does not change any key core parameters that
influence any accident consequences. Thus, the proposed change does
not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The methodology conservatively establishes acceptable core
operating limits such that the consequences of previously analyzed
events are not increased.
The proposed change in the list of analytical methods does not
affect the ability of DNPS and QCNPS to successfully respond to
previously evaluated accidents and does not affect the radiological
assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, the radiological
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 does not affect the
performance of any DNPS and QCNPS structure, system or component
credited for mitigating any accident previously evaluated. The NRC
approved analytical methodology for evaluating the APLHGR limits
will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or
the response of the plant equipment to transient conditions. The
proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors,
modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will add a reference to the list of
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5 that can be used to determine
core operating limits. The new methodology has been previously
approved by the NRC and accurately establishes the appropriate
APLHGR limits. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits
or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated and does not
change the requirements governing operation or availability of
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not impact the level of
protection currently provided.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrier County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: January 10, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14015A142.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would revise the CNP, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan
(CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CNP CSP
Implementation Schedule. It would also revise the existing operating
license 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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment proposes a change to the CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2
CSPs Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CNP
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation
date for the CNP CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-
related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing
the CNP 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 adequately
protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CNP CSP
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 safetyrelated 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. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
A revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule does not require
any plant modifications. The proposed revision to the CSP
Implementation Schedule does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, 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. Revision of the CNP CSP
Implementation Schedule 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. 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 amendment
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and does not
alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP, as implemented by
milestones 1-7, 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.
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
[[Page 38580]]
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, Michigan 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14078A039.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise CNS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule. It
would also revise the existing operating license 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. The revision of the CNS CSP Implementation
Schedule does not alter any previously evaluated design basis
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify
the function of plant safety-related structures, systems, or
components (SSCs), or affect how any plant safety-related SSCs are
operated, maintained, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance
capability of 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 change does 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 proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. The revision of the CNS CSP Implementation
Schedule 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 accident 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 ability of the
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
pressure boundary, and containment 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 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 will not degrade 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: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Manitowac County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated September 16, 2013. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML131820453 and ML13259A273, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment would provide the NRC's approval for adoption of a new fire
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10
CFR 50.48(a), (c), and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205,
Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire Protection for
Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092730314). This amendment request also follows the guidance in
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-02, Revision 2, ``Guidance for
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program
Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).'' Upon approval, the PBNP fire protection
program will transition to a new Risk-Informed, Performance-Based (RI-
PB) alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates
by reference National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA
805). The NFPA 805 fire protection program will supersede the current
fire protection program licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix R.
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.
Operation of PBNP [Point Beach Nuclear Plant] in accordance with
the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The PBNP Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of
design basis accidents (DBAs) and design basis events (DBEs) at
PBNP. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility and does not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their design function. SSCs required to mitigate DBAs and DBEs and
to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition will remain capable of performing their design
functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PPBNP to
adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been
performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based
(RI-PB) requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
to 10 CFR 50.48(b), satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design
Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, meets the underlying
intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations and
guidance, achieves defense-in-depth (DID), and meets the goals,
performance objectives, and performance criteria in Chapter 1 of the
[[Page 38581]]
standard. The small increase in the net CDF [core damage frequency]
associated with this LAR submittal is consistent with the [intent
of] the Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR
50.48(c) allows self-approval of fire protection changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in CDF or
risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of
the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of this [proposed] amendment
does not significantly increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate DBAs or DBEs
remain capable of performing their assumed function. Therefore, the
consequences of any accident or event previously evaluated are not
significantly increased with the implementation of this [proposed]
amendment.
The probability of these accidents and events was not impacted
by this proposed transition. The radiological consequences were
evaluated as documented in Section 4.4, Radioactive Release
Performance Criteria, and Attachment E, NEI 04-02 Radioactive
Release Transition, which demonstrates that the radiological
consequences of these accidents and events were not significantly
increased.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously
analyzed design basis accidents or events with potential offsite
radiological consequences were included in the evaluations
documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter the
requirements or functions for systems required during design basis
accidents or events. Implementation of the proposed new fire
protection licensing basis, which complies with the requirements in
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205,
will not result in new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the PBNP facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to mitigate DBAs and DBEs and to safely shut
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain
capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PBNP to adopt
a new fire protection licensing basis, which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been
performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based
(RI-PB) requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated.
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any kind of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do
not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate
a new accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of this proposed amendment.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analyses acceptance criteria
are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of
equipment assumed to mitigate DBAs or DBEs in the UFSAR. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to
perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain
capable of performing their design function.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit PBNP to adopt a new
fire protection licensing basis, which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been
performed, including probabilistic risk assessments and fire
modeling calculations, to demonstrate that the performance-based
methods do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of
safety. NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and
the common defense and security because the overall approach of NFPA
805 is consistent with key principles for evaluating license basis
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the defense-
in-depth philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
Based on this, the implementation of this proposed amendment
does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed
changes are evaluated to ensure that the risk and safety margins are
kept within acceptable limits.
Therefore, the transition 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 Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC., P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14133A413 and ML14149A318, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license 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 revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation
date. 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 is an extension to the completion
date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself 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 and have no impact on
[[Page 38582]]
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the CSP Implementation Schedule.
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 accident 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
extends the CSP implementation schedule. Because there is no change
to these established safety margins as result of this change, the
proposed change does not involve a 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 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: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14133A472 and ML14149A316, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation
date. 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 is an extension to the completion
date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself 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 and have no impact on the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the CSP Implementation Schedule.
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment 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
extends the CSP implementation schedule. Because there is no change
to these established safety margins as result of this change, the
proposed change does not involve a 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are available in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A415 and ML14149A317, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation
date. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add
any initiators, or affect the
[[Page 38583]]
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change is an extension to the completion date of implementation
Milestone 8, that in itself 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 and have no impact on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the CSP Implementation Schedule.
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment 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
extends the CSP implementation schedule. Because there is no change
to these established safety margins as result of this change, the
proposed change does not involve a 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrier County, Michigan
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Manitowac County, Wisconsin
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
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
[[Page 38584]]
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) officer if that officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of
access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 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.
[[Page 38585]]
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. 2014-14880 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P