[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71450-71458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28062]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0250]


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 4 amendment

[[Page 71451]]

requests. The amendment requests are for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Vogtle 
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2; and South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2. The NRC 
proposes to determine that each amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request 
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 2, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 2, 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 December 12, 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-2014-0250. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela M. Baxter, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0250 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-2014-0250.
     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-2014-0250 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 a notice of issuance in 
the Federal Register. 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.

[[Page 71452]]

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. The petition must demonstrate that the matters raised are 
within the scope of the proceeding. The issues raised must be material 
to the finding the NRC must make to support the action involved in the 
proceeding. 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 
ten 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.

[[Page 71453]]

    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].
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 30, 2013, March 10, 2014, and April 11, 2014. 
Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML13269A140, ML13364A286, ML14069A103, and ML14104A144, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment would allow Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) 
to operate in the expanded Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis 
Plus (MELLLA+) domain. Specifically, the amendment would change the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) including the operating power/flow map 
and a number instrument allowable values and setpoints, and the current 
core stability solution.
    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 probability (frequency of occurrence) of design basis 
accidents occurring is not affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain 
because GGNS continues to comply with the regulatory and design 
basis criteria established for plant equipment. Furthermore, a 
probabilistic risk assessment demonstrates that the calculated core 
damage frequencies do not significantly change due to the MELLLA+.
    There is no change in consequences of postulated accidents when 
operating in the MELLLA+ operating domain compared to the operating 
domain previously evaluated. The results of accident evaluations 
remain within the NRC-approved acceptance limits. The spectrum of 
postulated transients has been investigated and shown to meet the 
plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. In the area of fuel 
and core design, for example, the Safety Limit Minimum Critical 
Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is still met. Continued compliance with the 
SLMCPR is confirmed on a cycle-specific basis consistent with the 
criteria accepted by the NRC.

[[Page 71454]]

    Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were 
evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions (pressure, 
temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their 
acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin.
    Challenges to the containment were evaluated and the containment 
and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the current 
licensing basis. The calculated post LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] 
suppression pool temperature remains acceptable.
    Based on the above, operating in the MELLLA+ domain does not 
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.
    Equipment that could be affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain 
has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment 
lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was identified. 
The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated and 
no new or different kind of accident has been identified. The 
MELLLA+ operating domain uses developed technology, which is applied 
within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment 
in accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC-approved 
codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event precursor 
has been identified. In addition, the changes have been assessed and 
determined not to introduce a different accident than that 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The MELLLA+ operating domain affects only design and operating 
margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
and containment were evaluated for MELLLA+ operating domain 
conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design 
and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures, 
systems, and components, including the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary, will remain within their design allowables for design 
basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded.
    Because the GGNS configuration and responses to transients and 
postulated accidents do not exceed the NRC-approved acceptance 
limits, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: September 4, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14247A503.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications and Facility 
Operating Licenses to allow operation in the expanded Maximum Extended 
Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) domain. The MELLLA+ expanded 
operating domain increases operating flexibility by allowing control of 
reactivity at maximum power by changing flow rather than by control rod 
insertion and withdrawal.
    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 operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. The probability (frequency of 
occurrence) of Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) occurring is not 
affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain because PBAPS continues to 
comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for 
plant equipment. There is no change in consequences of postulated 
accidents when operating in the MELLLA+ operating domain compared to 
the operating domain previously evaluated. The results of accident 
evaluations remain within the NRC approved acceptance limits.
    The spectrum of postulated transients has been investigated and 
is shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. 
Continued compliance with the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power 
Ratio (SLMCPR) will be confirmed on a cycle-specific basis 
consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC.
    Challenges to the reactor coolant pressure boundary were 
evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain conditions (pressure, 
temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their 
acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin.
    Challenges to the containment were evaluated and the containment 
and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the current 
licensing basis. The calculated post-Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) 
suppression pool temperature remains acceptable.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    Equipment that could be affected by the MELLLA+ operating domain 
has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment 
lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was identified. 
The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated and 
no new or different kind of accident has been identified. The 
MELLLA+ operating domain uses developed technology, and applies it 
within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related equipment 
in accordance with the regulatory criteria (including NRC-approved 
codes, standards and methods). No new accident or event precursor 
has been identified. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 operation in the MELLLA+ domain does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The MELLLA+ operating domain affects only design and operational 
margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
and containment were evaluated for the MELLLA+ operating domain 
conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design 
and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures, 
systems, and components, including the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary, will remain within their design allowables for design 
basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded. The 
PBAPS configuration and responses to transients and postulated 
accidents do not result in exceeding the presently approved NRC 
acceptance limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

[[Page 71455]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon 
Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-
348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: September 17, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14267A030.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and TS 5.6.5 related to the moderator 
temperature coefficient.
    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 safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density 
coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases 
for and values of the most negative MTC [moderator temperature 
coefficient] Limiting Condition for Operation [LCO] and for the 
Surveillance Requirement are not changing. Instead, a revised 
prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance limit to determine if 
the limit is met.
    The proposed changes to the TS [technical specification] do not 
affect the initiators of any analyzed accident. In addition, 
operation in accordance with the proposed TS changes ensures that 
the previously evaluated accidents will continue to be mitigated as 
analyzed. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design 
function or operation of any structures, systems, and components 
important to safety.
    The probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report] are 
unaffected by this proposed change because there is no change to any 
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario. There are no new 
or additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density 
coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases 
for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for 
Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. 
Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance 
limit to determine if the limit is met.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally the 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation and all safety functions will continue to 
perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. Thus, the 
proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function or 
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to 
safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety related system.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density 
coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases 
for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for 
Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. 
Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance 
limit to determine if the limit is met.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no affect 
on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-
related systems and components. A change to a surveillance 
requirement is proposed based on an alternate method of confirming 
that the surveillance is met. The Technical Specification Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) limits are not being changed.
    The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of 
plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of 
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness 
Center Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14260A432.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise Administrative Controls Technical Specification 
(TS) 6.9.1.6, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' with respect to 
the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. 
During the 2015, refueling outages for STP, Units 1 and 2, STP Nuclear 
Operating Company will replace the existing Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow 
Measurement (UFM) System with a Cameron/Caldon Leading Edge Flow Meter 
(LEFM) CheckPlus System for measuring feedwater flow. The proposed TS 
change would revise the methodology for operating at a rated thermal 
power (RTP) of 3,853 Megawatt Thermal (MWt) to reflect the change of 
feedwater flow measurement equipment. This license amendment request 
and its TS change reflect only the equipment change and do not 
constitute a measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate 
application. STP, Units 1 and 2, will continue to operate with the 
currently licensed RTP of 3,853 MWt.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change reflects a physical alteration of the plant, 
but not a new or different type of equipment. The existing external 
Crossflow UFM System will be replaced with the Cameron/Caldon LEFM

[[Page 71456]]

CheckPlus System, both of which are ultrasonic feedwater flow 
measuring systems. The proposed change will not affect the operation 
or function of plant equipment or systems. The proposed change will 
not introduce any new accident initiators, and therefore, does not 
increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. There 
will be no degradation in the performance of or an increase in the 
number of challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to 
function during an accident situation. There will be no change to 
normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation 
performance. The proposed change will not alter any assumptions or 
change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence 
evaluations in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)].
    Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change reflects a physical alteration of the plant, 
but not a new or different type of equipment. The existing external 
Crossflow UFM System is being replaced with the Cameron/Caldon LEFM 
CheckPlus System, both of which are ultrasonic feedwater flow 
measuring systems. The NRC Ultrasonic Flow Meter Allegation Task 
Group believes the LEFM CheckPlus UFMs are inherently better able to 
recognize and are less sensitive to changes in the velocity profile 
than the external UFM designs (Reference 6.5 [of the application 
dated August 14, 2014]).
    The proposed TS change is a change to the Administrative 
Controls section of the TS which does not change the meaning, 
intent, interpretation, or application of the TS. The physical plant 
change reflected by the TS change does alter the plant configuration 
by replacing one feedwater measurement system with another. However, 
this does not alter assumptions about previously analyzed accidents, 
or impact the operation or function of any plant equipment or 
systems. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a 
result of the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The Caldon LEFM CheckPlus System has a 
mass flow uncertainty of less than +0.5%, which is bounded by the 
total mass flow uncertainty of +0.97% applied in the current STP 
operating license. The safety analysis acceptance criteria as stated 
in the UFSAR are not impacted by the change. The proposed change 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis. The proposed LEFM CheckPlus System has demonstrated 
better measurement accuracies than the differential pressure type 
instruments and provides on-line verification to ensure that the 
system is operating within its uncertainty bounds. The existing 
safety analyses remain bounding.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-78, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-
348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama

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

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

[[Page 71457]]

how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any 
other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These 
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order \2\ setting 
forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent 
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to 
SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access 
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions 
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 
This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a 
hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

It is so ordered.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Res+olving 
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.

[[Page 71458]]

 
A + 60.........  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to
                  answers.
>A + 60........  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-28062 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P