[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53455-53464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19880]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0190]


Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a 
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of six amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Fermi 2; Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; Hope 
Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 
and 2; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 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 October 9, 2014. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 10, 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 September 19, 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-2014-0190. 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: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0190.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [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

[[Page 53456]]

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0190 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires 
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed 
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish 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

[[Page 53457]]

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 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

[[Page 53458]]

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].
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B528.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request pertains to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
implementation schedule change in 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.
    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 amendment proposes a change to the Fermi 2 Cyber Security 
Plan (CSP) M8 full implementation date as set forth in the Fermi 2 
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation 
date for the Fermi 2 CSP does not involve modifications to any 
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). The 
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing 
the Fermi 2 CSP. The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 
73.54 are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate 
cyber-attacks up to and including the design basis cyber-attack 
threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from 
cyber-attacks. The revision of the Fermi 2 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 
safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The implementation of the Fermi 2 CSP 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.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment 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 CSP provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are 
protected from cyber-attacks. The proposed amendment does not 
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties 
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no 
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the 
above considerations, the proposed amendment does not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Maters, DTE Energy, General 
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2) 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: December 23, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 14, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14002A086, and ML14051A499, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would change the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 facility operating license 
and technical specifications. Specifically, the amendment requests 
review and approval to transition the fire protection licensing basis 
at BVPS, from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 
Section 50.48(b), to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire 
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants.'' The 
adoption of NFPA-805, would provide BVPS with a risk-informed, 
performance-based fire protection program, and allow them to make 
changes to their fire protection program without prior NRC approval, 
only if the changes would not adversely affect the plant's ability to 
achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.

[[Page 53459]]

    Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. Engineering analyses, which may 
include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, 
and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate 
that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have been 
satisfied. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBA) at BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alters design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform 
their design functions. SSCs required 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 BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which 
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the guidance 
in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1 [Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314)]. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
    Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, 
probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, 
have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based 
requirements of NFPA 805 have been met. NFPA 805, taken as a whole, 
provides an acceptable alternative for satisfying General Design 
Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 and meets the 
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations 
and guidance. It also achieves defense in depth and the goals, 
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in 
Chapter 1 of the standard and, if there are any increases in core 
damage frequency (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 the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. 
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of 
performing the assumed function. The proposed amendment will not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological 
dose criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated are not increased with the 
implementation of the proposed amendment.
    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 BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 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 accident with off-site dose was included in the 
evaluation of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does 
not alter the requirements or function for systems required during 
accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection 
licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.[4]8(c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 
1.205, Revision 1 will not result in new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. 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 maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies 
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers 
that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance 
criteria for licensees to identify fire protection requirements that 
are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required 
fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of 
NFPA 805 have been met.
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously 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. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this 
amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on 
any safety-related system as a result of this amendment. 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 amendment.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. The risk evaluation of plant changes, as appropriate, were 
measured quantitatively for acceptability using the delta CDF and 
delta [Large Early Release Frequency] LERF criteria from Section 
5.3.5 of NEI 04-02 and of Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. 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 analysis 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 accidents in the UFSAR. This 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 functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis, which 
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(c) and the guidance 
in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers that NFPA 
805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R-required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of 
NFPA 805 have been met.
    The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and 
safety margins are kept within acceptable limits. Therefore, the 
transition to NFPA 805 does not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety. The requirements of NFPA 805 are structured to 
implement the NRC's mission of the protection of public health and 
safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the 
environment. NFPA 805 is also consistent with the key principles for 
evaluating license basis changes as described in Regulatory Guide 
1.174 [An Approach for using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-
Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100910006)] and is consistent with the 
defense in depth philosophy while maintaining sufficient 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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.

[[Page 53460]]

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April 29, 2014, and May 
9, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML13200A185, ML14035A297, ML14077A291, ML14153A498, and ML14132A189, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would allow for a transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel 
design and implementation of AREVA safety analysis methods at the MNGP. 
The transition to the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel design would permit use at 
Extended Power Uprate conditions with operation in the Maximum Extended 
Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) power-flow operating domain. 
Specifically, NSPM proposed to revise Technical Specification (TS) 
5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add AREVA analysis 
methodologies to the list of approved methods used in determining core 
operating limits. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota also 
proposes to (1) revise TS 2.1, ``SL [Safety Limits],'' to change the 
steam dome pressure associated with safety limits when using AREVA 
safety analysis methods, and (2) insert an editorial change to TS 
4.2.1, ``Reactor Core, Fuel Assemblies,'' to add ``water channel,'' in 
addition to the current ``water rod,'' to reflect the design of the 
AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel assembly design feature.
    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, with minor editorial revisions 
designated in brackets ([ ]):

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Changing fuel designs and making an editorial change to TS will 
not increase the probability of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). 
The fuel cannot increase the probability of a primary coolant system 
breach or rupture, as there is not interaction between the fuel and 
the system piping. The fuel will continue to meet the 10 CFR 50.46, 
[``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,''] limits. Therefore, the consequences 
of a LOCA will not be increased.
    The probability of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA) does not 
increase because the ATRIUM 10XM fuel channel is mechanically 
compatible with the co-resident fuel and existing control blade 
designs. The mechanical interaction and friction forces between the 
ATRIUM 10XM channel and control blades would not be higher than 
previous designs. In addition, routine plant testing includes 
confirmation of adequate control blade to control rod drive 
coupling. The probability of a CRDA is not increased with the use of 
ATRIUM 10XM fuel. CRDA consequences are evaluated on a cycle-
specific basis, confirming the number of calculated rod failures 
remains within the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) design 
basis. Similarly, changing the fuel design and making an editorial 
change to TS cannot increase the probability of an anticipated 
operation occurrence (AOO). As a passive component, the fuel does 
not interact with plant operating or control systems. Therefore, the 
fuel change cannot affect the initiators of the previously evaluated 
AOO transient events. Thermal limits for the new fuel will be 
determined on a cycle-specific basis, ensuring the specified 
acceptable fuel design limits continue to be met. Therefore, the 
consequences of a previously evaluated AOO will not increase.
    A disposition of the plant's postulated accidents with 
radiological consequences indicated that the consequences of only 
two accidents could be affected by the proposed change in fuel type; 
the LOCA and the CRDA. Revised dose analyses using the approved 
Alternative Source Term methodology at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) 
rated power concluded that the change in fuel type resulted in small 
variations in the radiological source term for the reactor core and 
a corresponding slight difference in the overall dose consequences. 
At no location did the calculated dose increase more than two 
percent compared to previously-submitted radiological dose at EPU 
power levels. Dose consequences for the LOCA and CRDA with an ATRIUM 
10XM fuel source term remained well below the regulatory limits of 
10 CFR 50.67, [``Accident source term,''] and Regulatory Guide 
1.183, [``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating 
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.'']
    The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits involves a 
technical evaluation that demonstrates the range of applicability 
for the AREVA Critical Power Correlations will always bound the 
postulated pressures of plant transients using the AREVA safety 
analysis methodology. As a technical evaluation, this proposed 
change involves no physical change to a system, structure, 
component, or setpoint. Therefore, the proposed change in no way can 
affect the probability or the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    [Therefore, the proposed activity 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 ATRIUM 10XM fuel product has been designed to maintain 
neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical compatibility with the 
co-resident fuel designs currently in use at MNGP. The ATRIUM 10XM 
fuel has been designed to meet fuel licensing criteria specified in 
NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for Review of Safety Analysis 
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.'' Compliance with these criteria 
ensures the fuel will not fail in an unexpected manner.
    A change in fuel design and an editorial change to TS cannot 
create any new accident initiators because the fuel is a passive 
component having no direct influence on the performance of operating 
plant systems and equipment. Hence, a fuel design change cannot 
create a new type of malfunction leading to a new or different kind 
of accident. Consequently, the proposed fuel design change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    Also, as a technical evaluation, the proposed change to Reactor 
Core Safety Limits involves no physical change to a system, 
structure, component, or setpoint. Therefore, this proposed change 
could in no way introduce a new physical interaction that would 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    [Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 ATRIUM 10XM fuel is designed to comply with the fuel 
licensing criteria specified in NUREG-0800. Cycle-specific and 
cycle-independent safety analyses are performed ensuring no fuel 
failures will occur as the result of anticipated operational 
occurrences, and dose consequences for accidents remain with the 
bounds of 10 CFR 50.67. Applicable regulatory margins and 
requirements are maintained.
    The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits is consistent 
with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC approved 
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid 
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety 
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design 
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    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 53461]]

proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: December 24, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14016A079 and ML14174B239, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem 
Nuclear Generating Station, 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the PSEG Cyber Security Plan 
(CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 (M8) full implementation 
date as set forth in the PSEG CSP Implementation Schedule. The 
revision of the full implementation date for M8 does not involve 
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs). Rather, the implementation schedule provides a 
timetable for fully implementing the PSEG 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, thereby achieving high assurance that the 
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks 
are protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the PSEG CSP 
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any 
plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The implementation of the PSEG CSP does not introduce new 
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and 
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the way any safety-related SSCs 
function and does not alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP 
provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber 
attacks. The proposed amendment does not introduce any new 
uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties associated with 
any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no effect on the 
structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure 
boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above 
considerations, the proposed amendment does not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation (dose or exposure) to the public.
    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 8, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML14142A018 and ML14142A013, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the South Texas Project (STP) Cyber Security 
Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the STP 
CSP Implementation Schedule. The amendments would also revise paragraph 
2.H of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 for STP, Unit 1 and NFP-
80 for STP, Unit 2, by incorporating the revised CSP 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the STP CSP Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the STP CSP Implementation 
Schedule. The revision of the full implementation date for the STP 
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 STP CSP. The CSP 
describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented 
to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and 
including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving 
high assurance that the facility's digital computer and 
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber 
attacks. The revision of the STP 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 safety related 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The implementation of the STP CSP does not introduce new 
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and 
no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.

[[Page 53462]]

    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment 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 STP CSP provides assurance 
that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. The 
proposed amendment does not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment has no effect on the structural integrity of 
the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment 
structure. Based on the above considerations, the proposed amendment 
does degrade the confidence in the ability of the fission product 
barriers to limit the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
    Date of amendment request: February 26, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14064A328.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING 
LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to incorporate Westinghouse Electric Company 
LLC's topical report WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA 
Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated Statistical Treatment of 
Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),'' January 2005, to the list of analytical 
methods used to determine the core operating limits. A non-proprietary 
version of the topical report, designated as WCAP-16009-NP-A, is 
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML050910159 and ML050910161.
    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 Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis 
methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A 
to Specification 5.6.5b. as a method used for establishing core 
operating limits.
    Accident analyses are not accident initiators; therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident. The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated 
that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria 
for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power 
reactors,'' were met. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent 
with the methodology in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved 
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and 
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are 
met; thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in 
the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to the plant 
are associated with the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a 
method used for establishing core operating limits. There are no 
physical changes being made to the plant as a result of using the 
Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for 
performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA 
analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved 
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and 
conditions; demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are 
met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The 
configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or 
components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology. 
Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event 
results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new 
accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within 
the design limits of existing plant equipment.
    In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA 
analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that 
could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems 
remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been 
installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or 
accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation 
actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in 
Specification 5.6.5b. is an administrative change that does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises Specification 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to Specification 5.6.5b. as a 
method used for establishing core operating limits. The analyses 
using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable acceptance criteria in 
10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for large break LOCAs 
include quantitative limits for fuel performance established in 10 
CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being changed by this 
proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses performed 
consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A, 
including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions, 
demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met; thus, 
this 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

[[Page 53463]]

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

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2) 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

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

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Salem County, New Jersey

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

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

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General 
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the 
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or 
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access 
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions 
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a 
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) 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

[[Page 53464]]

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 14th day of August 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. 2014-19880 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P