[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65427-65434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25530]



[[Page 65427]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0230]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment 
requests are for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; R.E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant; and St. Lucie 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 December 4, 2014. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 5, 2015. 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 November 14, 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-2014-0230. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
     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: Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0230 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-2014-0230.
     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 White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0230 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

[[Page 65428]]

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 participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger of the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The 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

[[Page 65429]]

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 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].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014. A redacted, publicly-
available, version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML14176A109.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would implement a measurement uncertainty recapture power 
uprate at Catawba Unit 1 that would increase authorized core power 
level from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt. This is an 
increase of approximately 1.7 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP). The 
increase in thermal power is based on the use of Cameron (a.k.a. 
Caldon) instrumentation to determine core power level with a power 
measurement uncertainty of approximately 0.3 percent.
    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 amendment changes the rated thermal power from 3411 
MWt to 3469 MWt; an increase of approximately 1.7% Rated Thermal Power. 
Duke Energy's evaluations have shown that all structures, systems and 
components (SSCs) are capable of performing their design function at 
the uprated power of 3469 MWt. A review

[[Page 65430]]

of station accident analyses found that all acceptance criteria are 
still met at the uprated power of 3469 MWt.
    The radiological consequences of operation at the uprated power 
conditions have been assessed. The proposed power uprate does not 
affect release paths, frequency of release, or the analyzed reactor 
core fission product inventory for any accidents previously evaluated 
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Analyses performed to 
assess the effects of mass and energy releases remain valid. All 
acceptance criteria for radiological consequences continue to be met at 
the uprated power level.
    The proposed change does not involve any change to the design or 
functional requirements of the safety and support systems. That is, the 
increased power level neither degrades the performance of, nor 
increases the challenges to any safety systems assumed to function in 
the plant safety analysis.
    While power level is an input to accident analyses, it is not an 
initiator of accidents. The proposed change does not affect any 
accident precursors and does not introduce any accident initiators. The 
proposed change does not impact the usefulness of the Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) in evaluating the operability of required systems 
and components.
    In addition, evaluation of the proposed TS [Technical 
Specification] changes demonstrates that the availability of equipment 
and systems required to prevent or mitigate the radiological 
consequences of an accident is not significantly affected. Since the 
impact on the systems is minimal, it is concluded that the overall 
impact on the plant safety analysis is negligible.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures 
are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The installation of 
the Cameron LEFM [Leading Edge Flow Meter] CheckPlus\TM\ System has 
been analyzed and failures of the system will have no adverse effect on 
any safety related system or any SSCs required for transient 
mitigation. SSCs previously required for the mitigation of a transient 
continue to be capable of fulfilling their intended design functions. 
The proposed change has no adverse effect on any safety related system 
or component and does not change the performance or integrity of any 
safety related system.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect any current system 
interfaces or create any new interfaces that could result in an 
accident or malfunction of a different kind than previously evaluated. 
Operation at the uprated power level does not create any new accident 
initiators or precursors. Credible malfunctions are bounded by existing 
accident analyses of record or new evaluations demonstrating that 
applicable criteria are still met with the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
    Although the proposed amendment increases the Catawba Unit 1 
operating power level, the unit retains its margin of safety because it 
is only increasing power by the amount equal to the reduction in 
uncertainty in the heat balance calculation. The margins of safety 
associated with the power uprate are those pertaining to core thermal 
power. These include fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure 
boundary, and containment barriers. Analyses demonstrate that the 
current design basis continues to be met after the measurement 
uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate. Components associated with 
the reactor coolant system pressure boundary structural integrity, 
including pressure-temperature limits, vessel fluence, and pressurized 
thermal shock are bounded by the current analyses. Systems will 
continue to operate within their design parameters and remain capable 
of performing their intended safety functions.
    The current Catawba safety analyses, including the design basis 
radiological accident dose calculations, bound the power uprate.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, 
North Carolina, 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC., Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New York
    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13093A064 and ML13093A065.
    Description of amendment request: This proposed amendment request 
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
proposed amendment requests approval of a new fire protection licensing 
basis of National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805), 
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 50.48(c), 
and Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' 
dated December 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314).
    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 purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Ginna to adopt a 
new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. 
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).
    Operation of Ginna 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

[[Page 65431]]

design basis accidents at Ginna. The proposed amendment does not affect 
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions, 
or configurations of the facility that would increase the probability 
of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the changes to be made for 
fire hazard protection and mitigation do not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, or components to perform their design 
functions for accident mitigation, nor do they affect the postulated 
initiators or assumed failure modes for accidents described and 
evaluated in the UFSAR. Structures, systems, or components required to 
safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown 
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for 
satisfying General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, meets 
the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations 
and guidance, and provides for defense-in-depth. The goals, performance 
objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of the 
standard ensure that, if there are any increases in core damage 
frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the 
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    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, and 
equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of 
performing the assumed function(s). The applicable radiological dose 
criteria will continue to be met.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Ginna in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter 
the requirements or functions 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 (c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, will not result in new or different 
accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different accident 
initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility in such a manner as to introduce new or 
different accident initiators. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components to 
perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components 
required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the 
impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated. Thus, 
implementation of the proposed amendment would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident beyond those already 
analyzed in the UFSAR. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, 
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced, and 
there will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-
related system as a result of the proposed amendment.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment 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 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Ginna 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 Regulatory 
Guide 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 required fire protection features (69 Fed. 
Reg. 33536, June 16, 2004).
    The overall approach of NFPA 805 is consistent with the key 
principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in 
Regulatory Guide 1.174, is consistent with the defense-in-depth 
philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins. Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed 
to demonstrate that the performance based methods do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Operation of Ginna 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 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. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components 
to perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components 
required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Gautam Sen, Sr. Counsel--Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland, 
21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 19, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML14192A022 and ML14241A422, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments 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.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination:

[[Page 65432]]

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 Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule is administrative in nature. The change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability or the 
structures, systems and components 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. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems and a component relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
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 of 
operation, limiting safety systems settings and safety limits specified 
in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the Cyber 
Security Plan implementation schedule is administrative in nature. 
Because there is no change in 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, Florida, 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

Exelon Generation Company, LLC., Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
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

[[Page 65433]]

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 five 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 five 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 21st day of October, 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Acting, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65434]]

[FR Doc. 2014-25530 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P