[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36601-36610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12484]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0096]


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 Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP); Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Diablo Canyon Nuclear 
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Hope Creek Generating Station. For each 
amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no 
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request 
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 7, 2016. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 8, 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 June 17, 2016.

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-2016-0096. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0096 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-2016-0096.
     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-2016-0096, 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

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

[[Page 36602]]

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.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing 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

[[Page 36603]]

should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by 
August 8, 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 
August 8, 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 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 U.S. 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.

[[Page 36604]]

    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 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 Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16075A103.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the PNP Technical Specifications (TS), Section 
5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and Section 5.6.8, ``Steam 
Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' Specifically, the licensee 
requested to implement an alternate repair criteria (ARC), that invokes 
a C-Star inspection length (C*), on a permanent basis for the cold-leg 
side of the SGs' tubesheet.
    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.
    Previously evaluated accidents are initiated by the failure of 
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change alters 
the SG cold leg repair criteria by limiting tube inspections length 
in the cold leg tubesheet, to the safety significant section, C* 
length, and, as such, does not have a detrimental impact on the 
integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that 
initiates an analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change has no 
significant effect upon previously evaluated accident probabilities 
or consequences.
    The proposed amendment to revise the PNP SG tube repair criteria 
in TS 5.5.8c, does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Alternate repair 
criteria are being proposed for the cold leg side of the SGs that 
duplicate the current alternate repair criteria for the hot leg side 
of the SGs, in TS 5.5.8c.1. The proposed SG tube inspection length 
maintains the existing design limits of the SGs and therefore does 
not increase the probability or consequences of an accident 
involving a tube rupture or primary to secondary accident-induced 
leakage, as previously evaluated in the PNP Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Also, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
Steam Generator Program Guidelines (NEI 97-06) [(ADAMS Accession No. 
ML111310708)] performance criteria for structural integrity and 
accident-induced leakage, which are incorporated in PNP TS 5.5.8, 
would continue to be satisfied.
    Implementing an alternate repair criteria would allow SG tubes 
with flaws below the C* length to remain in service. The potential 
consequences to leaving these flawed tubes inservice are tube burst, 
tube pullout, and accident induced tube leakage. Tube burst is 
prevented for a tube with defects within the tubesheet region 
because of the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Tube pullout 
could result from the axial forces induced by primary to secondary 
differential pressures that occur during the bounding event of the 
main steam line break. A joint industry test program report, WCAP-
16208-P, NDE Inspection Length for CE Steam Generator Tubesheet 
Region Explosive Expansions, Revision 1, May 2005 [(Non-proprietary 
version under ADAMS Accession No. ML051520417)], has defined the 
non-degraded tube to tubesheet joint length (C*) required to 
preclude tube pullout and maintain acceptable primary to secondary 
accident-induced leakage, conservatively assuming a 360 degree 
circumferential through wall crack exists immediately below this C* 
length.
    The PNP UFSAR Sections 14.14, Steam Line Rupture Incident, 
14.15, Steam Generator Tube Rupture with a Loss of Offsite Power, 
and 14.16, Control Rod Ejection, primary coolant system leakage 
limit is 0.3 gallon per minute (gpm) (432 gallons per day) in the 
unaffected SG. For the tube rupture accident, this 0.3 gpm leakage 
is in addition to the break flow rate associated with the rupture of 
a single SG tube. The WCAP-16208-P report used a primary to 
secondary accident-induced leakage criteria value of 0.1 gpm to 
derive the C* length. Use of 0.1 gpm ensures that the PNP TS 
limiting accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm is met.
    For PNP, the derived C* length for the cold leg side of the SGs 
is 12.5 inches, which is the same C* length, as the current TS, for 
the hot leg side of the SGs. Any degradation below the C* length is 
shown by test results and analysis to meet the NEI 97-06 performance 
criteria, thereby precluding an increased probability of a tube 
rupture event or an increase in the consequences of a steam line 
rupture incident or control rod ejection accident.
    Therefore, the C* lengths for the SG hot and cold legs provide 
assurance that the NEI 97-06 requirements for tube burst and leakage 
are met and that they conservatively derived maximum combined 
leakage from both tubesheet joints (hot and cold legs) is less than 
0.2 gpm at accident conditions. This combined leakage criterion of 
0.2 gpm in the faulted loop retains margin against the PNP TS 
allowable accident-induced leakage of 0.3 gpm per SG.
    In summary, the proposed changes to the PNP TS maintain existing 
design limits, meet the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.121 [ADAMS Accession No. ML003739366], and the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would 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 amendment provides for an alternate repair criteria 
that excludes the lower portion of the steam generator cold leg 
tubes from inspection below a C* length by implementing an alternate 
repair criteria. It does not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. It does not impact any other plant system or 
component. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety 
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the 
accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce any new equipment, 
change existing equipment, create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment, nor introduce any new malfunctions resulting from tube 
degradation. SG tube integrity is shown to be maintained for all 
plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed alternate 
repair criteria for the SG cold leg tubesheet region.
    The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously

[[Page 36605]]

evaluated because SG tube leakage limits and structural integrity 
would continue to be maintained during all plant conditions upon 
implementation of the proposed alternate repair criteria to the PNP 
TSs. The alternate repair criteria does not introduce any new 
mechanisms that might result in a different kind of accident from 
those previously evaluated. Even with the limiting circumstances of 
a complete circumferential separation (360 degree through wall 
crack) of a tube below the C* length, tube pullout is precluded and 
leakage is predicted to be maintained with the TS and accident 
analysis limits during all plant conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides an alternate repair criteria for 
the SG cold leg that invokes a C* inspection length criteria. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety since design SG primary to secondary leakage limits 
have been analyzed to continue to be met. This will ensure that the 
SG cold legs tubes continue to function as a primary coolant system 
boundary by maintaining their integrity. Tube integrity includes 
both structural and leakage integrity. The proposed cold leg 
tubesheet inspection C* depth, of 12.5 inches below the bottom of 
the cold-leg expansion transition or top of the cold-leg tubesheet, 
which is lower, would ensure tube integrity is maintained during 
normal and accident conditions because any degradation below C* is 
shown by test results and analyses to be acceptable.
    Operation with potential tube degradation below the proposed C* 
cold leg inspection length within the tubesheet region of the SG 
tubing meets the recommendation of NEI 97-06 SG program guidelines. 
Additionally, the proposed changes also maintain the structural and 
accident-induced leakage integrity as required by NEI 97-06.
    The total leakage from an undetected flaw population below the 
C* inspection length for the cold leg tubesheet under postulated 
accident conditions is accounted for, in order to assure it is 
within the bounds of the accident analysis.
    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: Mrs. Jeanne Cho, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16077A029.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the operating license to extend the completion 
date for full implementation of the CNP Cyber Security Plan (CSP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2 
CSPs Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CNP 
CSP Implementation Schedule. The revision of the full implementation 
date for the CNP CSP does not involve modifications to any safety-
related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the 
implementation schedule provides a timetable for fully implementing 
the CNP CSP. The CSP describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 
are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber 
attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat, 
thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are adequately 
protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CNP CSP 
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how 
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    A revision to the CSP Implementation Schedule does not require 
any plant modifications. The proposed revision to the CSP 
Implementation Schedule does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. Revision of the CNP CSP 
Implementation Schedule does not introduce new equipment that could 
create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment 
failure modes are created. No new accident scenarios, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed amendment 
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and does not 
alter the way the plant is operated. The CSP, as implemented by 
milestones 1-7, provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are 
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment does not 
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties 
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no 
effect on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, Michigan 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun 
Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A348.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would modify License Condition D, Fire Protection Program. 
License Amendment No. 275, issued June 16, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML14098A092), implemented the licensee's transition to a risk-informed, 
performance-based fire protection program based on National Fire 
Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based 
Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric 
Generating Plants, 2001

[[Page 36606]]

Edition.'' As part of the Transition License Conditions included in 
Amendment No. 275, the licensee committed to implement certain plant 
modifications as stated in Paragraph 3.D.(3)(b) of Renewed Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-40. Based on updated fire modeling 
assumptions, the licensee is proposing to withdraw the commitments in 
REC-119 and REC-120 due to the fact that they are not necessary to meet 
the performance requirements of the risk-informed fire protection 
standard.
    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 Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) documents the analyses 
of design basis accidents (DBA) at FCS. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design 
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility and does 
not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) to perform their design functions. SSCs required 
to safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown 
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The proposed amendment makes no physical changes to the plant 
and does not change the manner in which plant systems are 
controlled. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed amendment 
does not increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of 
performing the assumed function. The proposed amendment will not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological 
dose criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated are not increased with the 
implementation of the proposed amendment.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of FCS in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously 
analyzed accident with off-site dose was included in the evaluation 
of DBAs documented in the USAR. The proposed change does not alter 
the requirements or function for systems required during accident 
conditions. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not change 
the previous conclusion that the fire protection licensing basis 
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and 
the guidance in [Regulatory Guide (RG)] 1.205, Revision 0 [Risk-
Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water 
Nuclear Power Plants, May 2006, available under ADAMS Accession No. 
ML061100174], will not result in new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design 
function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify a commitment 
made as a licensing condition under Amendment No. 275 which 
implemented OPPD's transition to NFPA 805. The proposed amendment is 
not intended to reduce or, in any way, adversely affect compliance 
with NFPA 805 and is supported by engineering analyses that continue 
to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in RG 1.205, Revision 0.
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been 
evaluated. Based on this, the implementation of the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this 
amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on 
any safety related system as a result of this amendment. Therefore, 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind 
of accident previously evaluated is not created with the 
implementation of this amendment.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of FCS in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of 
equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the USAR. This amendment 
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their 
design function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to 
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of 
performing their design functions.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California
    Date of amendment request: October 26, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 20, 2011; April 2, April 30, June 6, August 2, 
September 11, November 27, and December 5, 2012; March 7, March 25, 
April 30, May 9, May 30, and September 17, 2013; April 24 and April 30, 
2014; February 2 and June 22, 2015; and January 25 and February 11, 
2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML113070457, ML113610541, ML12094A072, ML12131A513, ML121700592, 
ML122220135, ML12256A308, ML130040687, ML12342A149, ML13267A127, 
ML130930344, ML13121A089, ML13130A059, ML131540159, ML13261A354, 
ML14205A031, ML14121A002, ML15062A386, ML15173A469, ML16049A006, and 
ML16061A481, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the facility operating licenses to allow the 
permanent replacement of the current DCPP Eagle 21 digital process 
protection system (PPS) with a new digital PPS that is based on the 
Invensys Operations Management Tricon Programmable Logic Controller 
(PLC), Version 10, and the CS Innovations, LLC (a Westinghouse Electric 
Company), Advanced Logic System. The amendments would also incorporate 
a revised definition of Channel Operational Test in Technical 
Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions.''
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33243). The notice is being reissued in 
its entirety to include a revised description of the amendment request 
(change to TS 1.1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards

[[Page 36607]]

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 would allow Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
to permanently replace the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Eagle 21 
digital process protection system with a new digital process 
protection system that is based on the Invensys Operations 
Management Tricon Programmable Logic Controller, Version 10, and the 
CS Innovations Advanced Logic System. The process protection system 
replacement is designed to applicable codes and standards for 
safety-grade protection systems for nuclear power plants and 
incorporates additional redundancy and diversity features and 
therefore, does not result in an increase in the probability of 
inadvertent actuation or probability of failure to initiate a 
protective function. The process protection system replacement does 
not introduce any new credible failure mechanisms or malfunctions 
that cause an accident. The process protection system replacement 
design will continue to perform the reactor trip system and 
engineered safety features actuation system functions assumed in the 
Final Safety Analysis Report within the response time assumed in the 
Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses.
    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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is to permanently replace the current Diablo 
Canyon Power Plant Eagle 21 digital process protection system with a 
new digital process protection system. The process protection system 
performs the process protection functions for the reactor protection 
system that monitors selected plant parameters and initiates 
protective action as required. Accidents that may occur due to 
inadvertent actuation of the process protection system, such as an 
inadvertent safety injection actuation, are considered in the Final 
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses.
    The protection system is designed with redundancy such that a 
single failure to generate an initiation signal in the process 
protection system will not cause failure to trip the reactor nor 
failure to actuate the engineered safeguard features when required. 
Neither will such a single failure cause spurious or inadvertent 
reactor trips [n]or engineered safeguard features actuations because 
coincidence of two or more initiation signals is required for the 
solid state protection system to generate a trip or actuation 
command. If an inadvertent actuation occurs for any reason, existing 
control room alarms and indications will notify the operator to take 
corrective action.
    The process protection system replacement design includes 
enhanced diversity features compared to the current process 
protection system to provide additional assurance that the 
protection system actions credited with automatic operation in the 
Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses will be performed 
automatically when required should a common cause failure occur 
concurrently with a design basis event.
    The process protection system replacement does not result in any 
new credible failure mechanisms or malfunctions. The current Eagle 
21 process protection system utilizes digital technology and 
therefore the use of digital technology in the process protection 
system replacement does not introduce a new type of failure 
mechanism. Although extremely unlikely, the current Eagle 21 process 
protection system is susceptible to a credible common-cause software 
failure that could adversely affect automatic performance of the 
protection function. The process protection system replacement 
contains new, additional diversity features that prevent a common-
cause software failure from completely disabling the process 
protection system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The reactor protection system is fundamental to plant safety and 
performs reactor trip system and engineered safety features 
actuation system functions to limit the consequences of Condition II 
(faults of moderate frequency), Condition III (infrequent faults), 
and Condition IV (limiting faults) events. This is accomplished by 
sensing selected plant parameters and determining whether 
predetermined instrument settings are being exceeded. If 
predetermined instrument settings are exceeded, the reactor 
protection system sends actuation signals to trip the reactor and 
actuate those components that mitigate the severity of the accident.
    The process protection system replacement design will continue 
to perform the reactor trip system and engineered safety features 
actuation functions assumed in the Final Safety Analysis Report 
within the response time assumed Final Safety Analysis Report 
Chapter 6 and 15 accident analyses. The use of the process 
protection system replacement does not result in a design basis or 
safety limit being exceeded or changed. The change to the process 
protection system has no impact on the reactor fuel, reactor vessel, 
or containment fission product barriers. The reliability and 
availability of the reactor protection system is improved with the 
process protection system replacement, and the reactor protection 
system will continue to effectively perform its function of sensing 
plant parameters to initiate protective actions to limit or mitigate 
events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 19, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15265A223 and ML15323A268, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would allow for the replacement and upgrade of the existing 
analog Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) sub-system of the Neutron 
Monitoring System with General Electric-Hitachi digital Nuclear 
Measurement Analysis and Control (NUMAC) Power Range Neutron Monitoring 
(PRNM) system. The PRNM upgrade also includes Oscillation Power Range 
Monitor (OPRM) capability and will allow full APRM, Rod Block Monitor 
(RBM), Technical Specification Improvement Program implementation, and 
will include application of Technical Specification Task Force 
Traveler-493, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS 
[Limiting Safety System Setting] Functions,'' to affected PRNM 
functions.
    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 of accidents occurring is not affected by the 
PRNM system, as the PRNM system is not the initiator of any accident 
and does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an 
accident. The transition from flow-biased to power-biased RBM does 
not increase the probability of an accident; the RBM is not involved 
in the initiation of any accident. The regulatory criteria 
established for the APRM, OPRM, and RBM systems will be maintained 
with the installation of the upgraded PRNM system. Therefore, the

[[Page 36608]]

proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The consequences of accidents are not affected by the PRNM 
system, as the setpoints in the PRNM system will be established so 
that all analytical limits are met. The unavailability of the new 
system will be equal to or less than the existing system and, as a 
result, the scram reliability will be equal to or better than the 
existing system. No new challenges to safety-related equipment will 
result from the PRNM system modification. The change to power biased 
RBM allows for Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) analyses performed for 
each future reload to take credit for rod blocks during the rod 
withdrawal transients. The results of the RWE event analysis will be 
used in establishing the cycle specific operating limits for the 
fuel. The proposed change will also replace the currently installed 
and NRC approved Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) OPRM Option III long-term 
stability solution with an NRC approved General Electric-Hitachi 
(GEH) Detect and Suppress Solution--Confirmation Density (DSS-CD) 
stability solution (reviewed and approved by the NRC in Reference 2, 
Licensing Topical Report). The OPRM meets the GDC [General Design 
Criteria] 10, ``Reactor Design,'' and 12, ``Suppression of Reactor 
Power Oscillations,'' requirements by automatically detecting and 
suppressing design basis thermal hydraulic oscillations to protect 
specified fuel design limits. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The components of the PRNM system will be supplied to equivalent 
or better design and qualification criteria than is currently 
required for the plant. Equipment that could be affected by [the] 
PRNM system has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-
related equipment lineup, accident scenario, or system interaction 
mode was identified. Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will not 
adversely affect plant equipment.
    The new PRNM system uses digital equipment that has software 
controlled digital processing points and software controlled digital 
processing compared to the existing PRNM system that uses mostly 
analog and discrete component processing (excluding the existing 
OPRM). Specific failures of hardware and potential software common 
cause failures are different from the existing system. The effects 
of potential software common cause failure are mitigated by specific 
hardware design and system architecture as discussed in Section 6.0 
of the NUMAC PRNM LTR [Licensing Topical Report], and supported by a 
plant specific evaluation. The transition from a flow-biased RBM to 
a power dependent RBM does not change its function to provide a 
control rod block when specified setpoints are reached. The change 
does not introduce a sequence of events or introduce a new failure 
mode that would create a new or different type of accident. 
Failure(s) of the system have the same overall effect as the present 
design. No new or different kind of accident is introduced. 
Therefore, the PRNM system will not adversely affect plant 
equipment.
    The currently installed APRM System is replaced with a NUMAC 
PRNM system that performs the existing power range monitoring 
functions and adds an OPRM to react automatically to potential 
reactor thermal-hydraulic instabilities.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes associated with the NUMAC PRNM system 
implement the constraints of the NUMAC PRNM system design and 
related stability analyses. The NUMAC PRNM system change does not 
impact reactor operating parameters or the functional requirements 
of the PRNM system. The replacement equipment continues to provide 
information, enforce control rod blocks, and initiate reactor scrams 
under appropriate specified conditions. The power dependent RBM will 
continue to prevent rod withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod 
block setpoint is reached. The MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio] 
and Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) thermal limits will be 
developed on a cycle specific basis to ensure that fuel thermal 
mechanical design bases remain within the licensing limits during a 
control rod withdrawal error event and to ensure that the MCPR SL 
[Safety Limit] will not be violated as a result of a control rod 
withdrawal error event.
    The proposed change does not reduce safety margins. The 
replacement PRNM equipment has improved channel trip accuracy 
compared to the current analog system, and meets or exceeds system 
requirements previously assumed in setpoint analysis. The power 
dependent RBM will support cycle specific RWE analysis ensuring fuel 
limits are not exceeded. Thus, the ability of the new equipment to 
enforce compliance with margins of safety equals or exceeds the 
ability of the equipment which it replaces.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    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\

[[Page 36609]]

The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and 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 19th day of May, 2016.

    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).

[[Page 36610]]

 
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. 2016-12484 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P