[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67797-67804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27753]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0240]


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 five amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 
Unit 2; Cooper Nuclear Station; and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 
1. 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 December 3, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 4, 2016. 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 13, 2015.

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-2015-0240. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0240 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-2015-0240.
     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.

[[Page 67798]]

     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-2015-0240, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    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.

I. 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.

II. 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.

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

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

[[Page 67799]]

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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures.
    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).
    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 to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by 
January 4, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the 
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' 
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for 
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that 
under Sec.  2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the 
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located 
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the 
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion 
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance 
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a 
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on 
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A 
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any 
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be 
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited 
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by 
January 4, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those

[[Page 67800]]

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, in some instances, 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.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on 
obtaining information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining 
Information and Submitting Comments,'' section of this document.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, 
Illinois; and Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power 
Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 6, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 1, 2015. Publicly-available versions are 
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15055A154 and ML15251A381, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to delete no longer used 
methodologies and to add the AREVA analysis methodologies to the list 
of approved methods to be used in determining the core operating limits 
in the COLR. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, also proposes to revise 
DNPS and QCNPS TS 3.2.3, ``Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR),'' and TS 
3.7.7, ``The Main Turbine Bypass System.'' In addition, the proposed 
amendment would change one of the Allowable Values in the DNPS and 
QCNPS TS Surveillance Requirement 3.3.4.1.4, ``ATWS-RPT [Anticipated 
Transient Without Scram Recirculation Pump Trip] Instrumentation.''
    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 has no effect on any accident initiator or 
precursor previously evaluated and does not change the manner in 
which the core is operated. The type of fuel is not a precursor to 
any accident. The new methodologies for determining core operating 
limits have been validated to ensure that the output accurately 
models predicted core behavior, and use of the methodologies will be 
within the ranges previously approved. The new methodologies being 
referenced have all been submitted to the NRC, and have been 
approved.
    The proposed changes to the TS associated with LHGR and the Main 
Turbine Bypass System, support the new analyses performed as part of 
the transition to ATRIUM 10XM fuel. These changes do not require 
modification to the plant and do not impact any initiators of an 
accident previously analyzed. Implementation of these changes will 
ensure that the basis for the accident and transient analyses are 
maintained throughout the operating cycle.
    The proposed change to the ATWS-RPT high RPV [reactor pressure 
vessel] steam dome pressure does not require modification to the 
facility beyond the conservative reduction of the allowable value 
(AV). The proposed change will be implemented through revision of 
the associated surveillance test procedures, where the revised AV 
will replace the existing value.
    Calculation of the AV to plant-specific parameters provides 
additional confidence that protective instrumentation that passes 
the surveillance testing criteria will perform its design function 
without exceeding the associated limit.
    The revised AV for the ATWS-RPT is not considered an initiator 
to any previously analyzed accident and therefore, cannot increase 
the probability of any previously evaluated accident. Implementation 
of the revised AV will ensure that the instrumentation will perform 
its required function to meet the accident analysis assumptions. The 
proposed AV will ensure that the fuel is adequately cooled and over 
pressurization of the nuclear steam supply system is prevented 
following an accident or transient. The proposed change does not 
increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    There is no change in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed change in the administratively controlled 
analytical methods does not affect the ability to successfully 
respond to previously evaluated accidents and does not affect 
radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. The source term 
from ATRIUM 10XM fuel will be bounded by the source term assumed in 
the accident analyses. Since the proposed change ensures the same 
level of protection as assumed in the accident analyses, the 
conclusions of the accident scenarios remain valid. As a result, no 
changes to radiological release parameters are involved. There is no 
effect on the type or amount of radiation released, and there is no 
effect on predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident.

[[Page 67801]]

    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 does not affect the performance of any DNPS 
or QCNPS structure, system, or component credited with mitigating 
any accident previously evaluated. The use of new analytical 
methods, which have been reviewed and approved by the NRC, for the 
design of a core reload will not affect the control parameters 
governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to 
transient conditions. The proposed change does not introduce any new 
modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. The proposed TS 
changes ensure operation in compliance with the accident and 
transient analyses.
    The proposed change to the ATWS-RPT AV does not involve any 
physical changes to the ATWS-RPT system or associated components 
beyond the reduction in the ATWSRPT AV for high reactor vessel steam 
dome pressure, or the manner in which the ATWS-RPT system functions. 
The proposed change will not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. The change in methods governing normal plant 
operation is consistent with the current ATWS analysis assumptions 
specified in the DNPS and QCNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to TS 3.2.3 provides assurance the operating 
parameters are consistent with the inputs to the transient analyses 
which take credit for conservatisms in scram speed performance. The 
proposed change does not alter the acceptance criteria for control 
rod scram times. The proposed revision to TS 3.7.7 allows the 
flexibility to take credit for LHGR limits defined in the COLR based 
on the analyses supporting the transition to ATRIUM 10XM fuel. The 
proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5.b adds new analytical methods 
for design and analysis of core reloads to the list of methods 
currently used to determine the core operating limits. The NRC has 
previously approved the analytical methods being added.
    The proposed change also lowers the ATWS-RPT AV for RPT on high 
reactor steam dome pressure. There is no decrease in the margin of 
safety, since the maximum reactor vessel pressure for a postulated 
ATWS event and ASME overpressure event is maintained below the 
acceptance criteria. The proposed change will be implemented through 
revisions to the associated surveillance test procedures where the 
revised AV replaces the existing AV. Since the availability of the 
ATWS-RPT system will be maintained and since the system design is 
unaffected, the proposed change ensures the instrumentation is 
capable of performing its intended function.
    Since the setpoint at which the ATWS-RPT is activated is not a 
safety limit, the proposed change does not modify any safety limits 
at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the 
requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment 
assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no 
significant hazards consideration is justified.

    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: Tamra (Tami) Domeyer, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: September 3, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15252A204.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1 (``Reactor 
Core SLs''). Specifically, this change incorporates revised Safety 
Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) due to the cycle specific 
analysis performed by Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) for the introduction of 
GNF2 fuel for NMP2, Cycle 16.
    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 derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum 
Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical 
Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific 
thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed 
in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application for 
Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 21.
    The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that during 
normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, at 
least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs 
preserve the existing margin to transition boiling.
    The Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit is 
reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The 
analyses for NMP2, Cycle 16, have concluded that a two recirculation 
loop MCPR safety limit of >= [greater than or equal to] 1.15, based 
on the application of Global Nuclear Fuel's NRC-approved MCPR safety 
limit methodology, will ensure that this acceptance criterion is 
met. For single recirculation loop operation, a MCPR safety limit of 
>= 1.15 also ensures that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR 
operating limits are presented and controlled in accordance with the 
NMP2 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
    The requested TS changes do not involve any plant modifications 
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or 
performance or that could affect the probability of operator error. 
The requested changes do not affect any postulated accident 
precursors, do not affect any accident mitigating systems, and do 
not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed TS 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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that 
during normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, 
at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs are 
calculated using NRC-approved methodology discussed in NEDE-24011-P-
A, ``General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,'' 
Revision 21. The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of 
operation, any changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications. The 
proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be acceptable 
for Cycle 16 operation. The core operating limits will continue to 
be developed using NRC-approved methods. The proposed MCPR safety 
limits or methods for establishing the core operating limits do not 
result in the creation of any new precursors to an accident.
    Therefore, this change does 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.

[[Page 67802]]

    There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety 
previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to 
the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology 
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application 
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 21. The SLMCPRs ensure that during 
normal operation and during abnormal operational transients, at 
least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving 
the fuel cladding integrity.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.

    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: J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General Counsel, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under package Accession No. ML15229A031.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the CNS Technical Specifications (TS) by 
relocating pressure and temperature (P/T) limit curves to a pressure 
and temperature limits report (PTLR). The proposed amendment would 
modify TS Section 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and 
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel 
heatup and cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with 
references to the PTLR. A definition for the PTLR will be added to TS 
Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' and a section addressing administrative 
requirements for the PTLR will be added to TS Section 5.6, ``Reporting 
Requirements.'' The existing CNS NRC-approved P/T limit curves for 32 
effective full-power years are not being revised as a part of this 
relocation. In addition, editorial corrections are being made to the TS 
Table of Contents.
    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 revises the TS by replacing references to 
existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and P/T 
limit curves with references to the PTLR. In 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, 
requirements are established to protect the integrity of the reactor 
coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants.
    Continued use of an Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 
methodology for calculating P/T limit curves and relocating those 
curves to a PTLR provide an equivalent level of assurance that RCPB 
integrity will be maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, and does not alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the 
plant is operated and maintained. The ability of structures, 
systems, and components to perform their intended safety functions 
is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and the 
assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected.
    Therefore, 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 accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The relocation of P/T limits to the PTLR is administrative in 
nature and does not alter or involve any design basis accident 
initiators. RCPB integrity will continue to be maintained in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and the accident performance 
of plant structures, systems, and components will not be affected. 
These changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant, 
and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different 
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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 proposed amendment is administrative in nature and does not 
affect the function of the RCPB or its response during plant 
transients. Continuing to calculate the P/T limits using NRC-
approved methodology ensures adequate margins of safety relating to 
RCPB integrity are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter the 
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or 
limiting conditions for operation are determined, there are no 
changes to set points at which protective actions are initiated, and 
the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for 
accident mitigation are not affected.
    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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), Docket No. 50-321, Edwin I. 
Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2015. A publicly-available 
versions is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15252A186.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would change the Technical Specification value of the Safety 
Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) for both single and dual 
recirculation loop operation.
    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:

    The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards 
consideration because:
    1. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) ensures 
that, 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be susceptible to 
boiling transition during normal operation or the most limiting 
postulated design-basis transient event. The new SLMCPR values 
preserve the existing margin to the onset of transition boiling; 
therefore, the probability of fuel damage is not increased as a 
result of this proposed change. The determination of the revised HNP 
Unit 1 SLMCPRs has been performed using NRC-approved methods of 
evaluation. These plant-specific calculations are performed each 
operating cycle and may require changes for future cycles. The 
revised SLMCPR values do not change the method of operating the 
plant; therefore, they have no

[[Page 67803]]

effect on the probability of an accident initiating event or 
transient.
    Based on the above, SNC has concluded that the proposed change 
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for 
the HNP Unit 1 core reload design. These changes do not involve any 
new or different methods for operating the facility. No new 
initiating events or transients result from these changes.
    Based on the above, SNC has concluded that the proposed change 
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from those previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of HNP Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    The new SLMCPRs have been calculated using NRC-approved methods 
of evaluation with plant and cycle-specific input values for the 
fuel and core design for the upcoming cycle of operation. The SLMCPR 
values ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not be 
susceptible to boiling transition during normal operation or the 
most limiting postulated design-basis transient event. The operating 
MCPR limit is set appropriately above the safety limit value to 
ensure adequate margin when the cycle-specific transients are 
evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is maintained with the 
revised values.
    As a result, SNC has determined that the proposed change will 
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; and 
Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 
1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

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

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-321, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Appling County, Georgia

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

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

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

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

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access 
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions 
(as established in the notice

[[Page 67804]]

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 23rd day of October, 2015.

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

   Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
                           in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Day                             Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                          hearing and opportunity to petition for leave
                          to intervene, including order with
                          instructions for access requests.
10.....................  Deadline for submitting requests for access to
                          Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
                          Information (SUNSI) with information:
                          Supporting the standing of a potential party
                          identified by name and address; describing the
                          need for the information in order for the
                          potential party to participate meaningfully in
                          an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.....................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                          intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of
                          standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
                          formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                          (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7
                          petitioner/requestor reply).
20.....................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
                          informs the requester of the staff's
                          determination whether the request for access
                          provides a reasonable basis to believe
                          standing can be established and shows need for
                          SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to
                          the proceeding whose interest independent of
                          the proceeding would be harmed by the release
                          of the information.) If NRC staff makes the
                          finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of
                          standing, NRC staff begins document processing
                          (preparation of redactions or review of
                          redacted documents).
25.....................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no likelihood
                          of standing, the deadline for petitioner/
                          requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to
                          reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC
                          staff files copy of access determination with
                          the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
                          Judge or other designated officer, as
                          appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need'' for
                          SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
                          proceeding whose interest independent of the
                          proceeding would be harmed by the release of
                          the information to file a motion seeking a
                          ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                          access.
30.....................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                          reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.....................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                          need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                          complete information processing and file
                          motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                          Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                          licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for
                          SUNSI.
A......................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                          officer or other designated officer decision
                          on motion for protective order for access to
                          sensitive information (including schedule for
                          providing access and submission of
                          contentions) or decision reversing a final
                          adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3..................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
                          Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
                          consistent with decision issuing the
                          protective order.
A + 28.................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                          development depends upon access to SUNSI.
                          However, if more than 25 days remain between
                          the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
                          information and the deadline for filing all
                          other contentions (as established in the
                          notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
                          the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions
                          by that later deadline.
A + 53.................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions
                          whose development depends upon access to
                          SUNSI.
A + 60.................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply
                          to answers.
>A + 60................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-27753 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P