[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55864-55877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22307]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0208]


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.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by October 11, 2012. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 13, 2012. Any potential party as 
defined in Section 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request 
document access by September 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0208. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0208. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0208 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0208.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     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-2012-0208 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and 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

[[Page 55865]]

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires 
the Commission 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.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, then any hearing will take place 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    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 ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. 
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment

[[Page 55866]]

request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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/apply-certificates.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 the 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 agency'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 Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the 
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon 
which the filing is based is materially different from

[[Page 55867]]

information previously available; and (iii) the filing has been 
submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the 
subsequent information.
    For further details with respect to these amendment actions, see 
the applications for amendment which are 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12191A122.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 171 to the Facility 
Operating License for the River Bend Station (RBS), dated July 29, 2011 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML111940200), which approved the RBS Cyber 
Security Plan and associated implementation milestone schedule. The 
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule contained in the licensee's 
letter dated April 4, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11103A043), was 
utilized, as a portion of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation 
report provided by Amendment No. 171. The proposed amendment does not 
change the Implementation Schedule date, but Entergy has proposed this 
amendment to implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule 
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the 
approved Implementation Schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML120400144.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would allow the licensee to expand the operating domain by 
the implementation of Average Power Range Monitor/Rod Block Monitor/
Technical Specifications/Power Range Neutron Monitoring/Maximum 
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (ARTS/PRNM/MELLLA). The Neutron 
Monitoring System would be modified by replacing the analog Average 
Power Range Monitor (APRM) subsystem with the Nuclear Measurement 
Analysis and Control (NUMAC) Power Range Neutron Monitoring (PRNM) 
System. The licensee would expand the operating domain to Maximum 
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) and make changes to certain 
allowable values (AVs) and limits and to the Technical Specifications 
(TSs). The changes to the TSs include the adoption of Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-493, ``Clarify 
Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System 
Setting] Functions,'' Option A surveillance notes. Furthermore, the 
amendment would allow a change in the licensing basis to support 
Anticipated Transient without Scram (ATWS) accident mitigation with one 
Standby Liquid Control (SLC) pump instead of two.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, by classification of 
change, which is presented below. The proposed NSHC for PRNM system 
upgrade is presented first, followed by the proposed NSHC for the 
implementation of ARTS/MELLLA.

PRNM System Upgrade

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis 
Accidents occurring is not affected by the PRNM system, as the PRNM 
system does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an 
accident. The

[[Page 55868]]

regulatory criteria established for plant equipment such as the 
APRM, OPRM [Oscillation Power Range Monitor], and RBM [Rod Block 
Monitor] systems will be maintained with the installation of the 
upgraded PRNM system. Scram 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.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will replace the currently installed and NRC 
approved OPRM Option III long-term stability solution with an NRC 
approved Option III long-term stability solution digitally 
integrated into the PRNM equipment. The PRNM hardware incorporates 
the OPRM Option III detect and suppress solution reviewed and 
approved by the NRC in References 1, 2, 3, and 4 [References in 
Attachment 2 of the License Amendment Request] Licensing Topical 
Reports [(LTRs)], the same as the currently installed separate OPRM 
System. The OPRM meets the [General Design Criteria (GDCs)] 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.
    Based on the above, the operation of the new PRNM system and 
replacement of the currently installed OPRM Option III stability 
solution with the Option III OPRM function integrated into the PRNM 
equipment will not increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The 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 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 ``control'', 
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 reference [in the license amendment request]. 
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.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes associated with the NUMAC PRNM system 
retrofit 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 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. 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 changes do not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

ARTS/MELLLA Implementation

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP 
[Simulated Thermal Power] setdown requirement and substitutes power 
and flow dependent adjustments to the [Maximum Critical Power Ratio 
(MCPR)] and Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) thermal limits. 
Thermal limits will be determined using NRC approved analytical 
methods. The proposed change will have no effect upon any accident 
initiating mechanism. The power and flow dependent adjustments will 
ensure that the MCPR SL [Safely Limit] will not be violated as a 
result of any [anticipated operational occurrence (AOO)], and that 
the fuel thermal and mechanical design bases will be maintained.
    The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating 
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of 
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and by the replacement of the current 
flow-biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. As discussed in the 
Technical Evaluation Section 1.0 [in the license amendment request], 
and Attachment 1 [to the license amendment request], operation in 
the MELLLA expanded operating domain will not increase the 
probability or consequences of previously analyzed accidents. The 
APRM and RBM are not involved in the initiation of any accident, and 
the APRM flow-biased STP function is not credited in any CGS 
[Columbia Generating Station] safety analyses. The proposed change 
will not introduce any initial conditions that would result in NRC 
approved criteria being exceeded and the APRM and RBM will remain 
capable of performing their design functions.
    The SLC system is provided to shutdown the reactor without 
reliance on control rod movement, to mitigate anticipated transients 
without scram (ATWS) events and provide suppression pool pH control 
following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. As such, SLC is not 
considered an initiator of an ATWS event, LOCA or any other analyzed 
accident. The revised SLC pump flow rate and increased Boron-10 
enrichment continue to meet the shutdown requirement of SLC. The 
changes do not reduce the ability of the SLC system to respond to or 
mitigate an ATWS event or LOCA. Nor do these changes increase the 
likelihood of a system malfunction that could increase the 
consequences of an accident.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP setdown 
requirement and substitutes power and flow dependent adjustments to 
the MCPR and LHGR thermal limits. Because the thermal limits will 
continue to be met, no analyzed transient event will escalate into a 
new or different type of accident due to the initial starting 
conditions permitted by the adjusted thermal limits.
    The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating 
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of 
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and the replacement of the current flow-
biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. Changing the formulation 
for the flow-biased STP AV and changing from a flow-biased RBM to a 
power-dependent RBM does not change their respective functions and 
manner of operation. 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. While not credited for MCPR [safety 
limit (SL)] protection, the APRM flow-biased STP AV and associated 
scram trip setpoint will continue to provide a redundant trip for 
the credited trip functions (such as APRM Fixed Neutron Flux--High 
or Reactor Pressure--High). The power-dependent RBM will prevent rod 
withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod block setpoint is 
reached, thus protecting

[[Page 55869]]

MCPR SL. No new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators are being introduced by the proposed change. In addition, 
operating within the expanded power flow map will not require any 
systems, structures or components to function differently than 
previously evaluated and will not create initial conditions that 
would result in a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to the SLC pump flow rate credited in the 
ATWS analysis, in conjunction with the increased enrichment of 
Boron-10 in the sodium pentaborate solution, is consistent with the 
functional requirements of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 50.62). These 
proposed changes do not involve the installation of any new or 
different type of equipment, do not introduce any new modes of plant 
operation, and do not change any methods governing normal plant 
operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the APRM flow-biased STP setdown 
requirement and substitutes power and flow dependent adjustments to 
the MCPR and LHGR thermal limits. Replacement of the APRM setdown 
requirement with power and flow dependent adjustments to the MCPR 
and LHGR thermal limits will continue to ensure that margins to the 
fuel cladding SL are preserved during operation at other than rated 
conditions. Thermal limits will be determined using NRC approved 
analytical methods. The power and flow dependent adjustments will 
ensure that the MCPR SL will not be violated as a result of any AOO, 
and that the fuel thermal and mechanical design bases will be 
maintained.
    The proposed change also expands the power and flow operating 
domain by relaxing the restrictions imposed by the formulation of 
the APRM flow-biased STP AV and the replacement of the current flow-
biased RBM with a new power-dependent RBM. The APRM flow-biased STP 
AV and associated scram trip setpoint will continue to initiate a 
scram, providing a redundant trip that is not credited for 
protection of MCPR SL. The RBM will continue to prevent rod 
withdrawal when the power-dependent RBM rod block setpoint is 
reached. The MCPR and LHGR thermal limits will be developed 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 will not be violated as a result of a 
control rod withdrawal error event. Operation in the expanded 
operating domain will not alter the manner in which SLs, Limiting 
Safety System Setpoints (LSSSs), or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. AOOs and postulated accidents within the 
expanded operating domain will continue to be evaluated using NRC 
approved methods. The 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria for the 
performance of the ECCS [emergency core cooling system] following 
postulated LOCAs will continue to be met.
    The proposed change to the SLC flow rate, in conjunction with 
the increased Boron-10 enrichment in the sodium pentaborate 
solution, credited in the ATWS analysis continues to meet accident 
analyses limits. The proposed change is consistent with the 
functional requirements of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 50.62) and the flow 
rate credited for LOCA suppression pool pH control. The ability of 
the SLC system to respond to and mitigate an ATWS event or LOCA is 
not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2 and 3, Westchester 
County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A050.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule 
as approved in license amendments issued on August 2, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11152A027).
    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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. The proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12184A149, 
ML12177A363, and ML12177A365.

[[Page 55870]]

    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The NRC 
issued the Palisades Cyber Security Plan and associate Implementation 
Schedule on July 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111801243). The 
amendment would implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule 
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the 
approved Implementation Schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A047.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule 
as approved in license amendment issued on July 20, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11152A043).
    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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. The proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station, Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML121910298.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards

[[Page 55871]]

information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Cyber Security 
Plan Implementation Schedule as approved in license amendment issued on 
July 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A013).
    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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. The proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: June 18, 2012. A publicly available 
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12192A102.
    Description of amendment request: This application contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). Entergy, the 
licensee, is planning to implement the requirements of Cyber Security 
Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 6, approved by the NRC staff by 
letter dated July 27, 2011 (Amendment Nos. 244 and 294, for Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, respectively), in a slightly different 
manner than described in the approved Implementation Schedule. Although 
no change to the Implementation Schedule date is proposed, the change 
to the description of the milestone activity is considered to be a 
change to the Implementation Schedule, and in accordance with the 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, Entergy is submitting this 
request for an amendment to the physical protection license condition 
in the facility operating licenses.
    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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to established safety margins as 
a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

[[Page 55872]]

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

    Date of amendment request: June 27, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12215A381.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise License Amendment No. 186 to the Facility 
Operating License for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), dated July 27, 
2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111940165), which approved the GGNS Cyber 
Security Plan and associated implementation milestone schedule. The 
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule contained in the licensee's 
letter dated April 4, 2011 (ADAMS Access No. ML11103A042), was 
utilized, as a portion of the basis for the NRC's safety evaluation 
report provided by Amendment No. 186. The proposed amendment does not 
change the Implementation Schedule date, but Entergy has proposed this 
amendment to implement the requirements of Implementation Schedule 
Milestone 6 in a slightly different manner than described in the 
approved Implementation Schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to established safety margins as 
a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, 
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating (TPN), Units 3 and 4, Florida City, 
Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012. A publicly available 
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12227A452.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would change the cyber security plan implementation schedule 
for Milestone 6 at TPN, Units 3 and 4. The NRC issued license Amendment 
Nos. 245 and 241 to the renewed facility operating licenses for TPN 
Units 3 and 4, respectively, which approved the TPN Cyber Security Plan 
and associated implementation milestone schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee 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 scope change to Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule milestone 6 is administrative in nature. This change does 
not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications that affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 scope change to Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule milestone 6 is administrative in nature. This proposed 
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
accident initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications that affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create a possibility 
for an accident of a new or different type than those previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment 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 scope change 
to Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule milestone 6 is 
administrative in nature. Because there is no change to these 
established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

[[Page 55873]]

    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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012. A publicly available 
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12230A072.
    Description of amendment request: This application contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). NextEra 
Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, (the licensee), is planning to implement the 
requirements of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 
6, approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated July 29, 2011 (Amendment 
No. 278, for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)), in a slightly 
different manner than described in the approved Implementation 
Schedule. Although no change to the Implementation Schedule date is 
proposed, the change to the description of the milestone activity is 
conservatively considered to be a change to the Implementation 
Schedule, and in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and 
50.90, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold is submitting this request for an 
amendment to the facility operating license for DAEC.
    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 to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Mitchell S. Ross, P.O. Box 14000 Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: June 18, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would make changes to the cyber security plan implementation 
schedule for Milestone 6 at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 
1 and 2. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra) is planning to 
implement the requirements of Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule Milestone 6, as approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated 
July 21, 2011 (Amendment Nos. 243 and 247, for PBNP Units 1 and 2, 
respectively), in a slightly different manner than described in the 
approved Implementation Schedule. Although no change to the 
Implementation Schedule is proposed, the change to the description of 
the milestone activity is conservatively considered to be a change to 
the Implementation Schedule; therefore, in accordance with the 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, NextEra is requesting an 
amendment to the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for PBNP Units 1 
and 2, as it relates to the Physical Protection license condition 
associated with the PBNP Cyber Security Plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function

[[Page 55874]]

of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications that affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment 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 change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2012. A publicly available 
version of the application is available under ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12170A868.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment is for adoption of a new risk-informed performance-based (RI-
PB) fire protection licensing basis which complies with the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c); the guidance in 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire 
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1, 
and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-
Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric 
Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition. This amendment request also follows 
the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-02, ``Guidance for 
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program 
under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' Revision 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit NMP1 to adopt 
a new fire protection licensing basis that complies with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in 
Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an 
acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable 
alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
    Operation of NMP1 in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering 
evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling 
calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the 
performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses 
of design basis accidents at NMP1. The proposed amendment does not 
affect accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, 
conditions, or configurations of the facility that would increase 
the probability of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the 
changes to be made for fire hazard protection and mitigation do not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components 
to perform their design functions for accident mitigation, nor do 
they affect the postulated initiators or assumed failure modes for 
accidents described and evaluated in the UFSAR. Structures, systems, 
or components required to safely shutdown the reactor and to 
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of 
performing their design functions.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative 
for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 
Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire 
protection regulations and guidance, and provides for defense-in-
depth. The goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria 
specified in Chapter 1 of the standard ensure that, if there are any 
increases in core damage frequency or risk, the increase will be 
small and consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal 
Policy.
    The proposed amendment will not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated, and equipment required to mitigate an accident remains 
capable of performing the assumed function(s). The applicable 
radiological dose criteria will continue to be met.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of NMP1 in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not 
alter the requirements or functions for systems required during 
accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection 
licensing basis, which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance Regulatory Guide 1.205, will not 
result in new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different 
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, 
conditions, or configurations of the facility in such a manner as to 
introduce new or different accident initiators. The proposed 
amendment does not adversely affect the ability of structures, 
systems, or components to perform their design function. Structures, 
systems, or components required to safely shutdown the reactor and 
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of 
performing their design functions.
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been 
evaluated. Thus, implementation of the proposed amendment would not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident beyond 
those already analyzed in the UFSAR. No new accident scenarios, 
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single 
failures will be introduced, and there will be no adverse effect or 
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of the 
proposed amendment.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit NMP1 to adopt 
a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in 
Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an 
acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify fire protection systems and features that are

[[Page 55875]]

an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R required 
fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
    The overall approach of NFPA 805 is consistent with the key 
principles for evaluating license basis changes, as described in 
Regulatory Guide 1.174, is consistent with the defense-in-depth 
philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins. Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance based methods do not 
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Operation of NMP1 in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely 
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment 
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment 
does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or 
components to perform their design function. Structures, systems, or 
components required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel, 
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 26, 2012. A publicly available 
version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A394.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would make changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station and 
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses, to revise the physical protection license condition 
as it relates to the cyber security plan. Specifically, PSEG proposes a 
change to the scope of Implementation Milestone 6 to apply to only 
technical cyber security controls.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule are administrative in nature. The changes do not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
changes do not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule are administrative in nature. The proposed changes do not 
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
changes do not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes 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 change to 
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in 
nature. Because there is no change to these established safety 
margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

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

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana 
Parish, Louisiana

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2 and 3, Westchester 
County, New York

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades 
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station, Vernon, Vermont

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

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

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-
251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, 
Florida

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, 
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 
Manitowac County, Wisconsin

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

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

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to

[[Page 55876]]

documents containing sensitive unclassified information (including 
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (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 access to SUNSI. 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 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 requestor 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 Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, 
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 requestor'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) above, as applicable, 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.
    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 requisite need, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requestor 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) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor 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\ Requestors 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 5th day of September, 2012.

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

[[Page 55877]]



   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; (ii) all contentions whose
                         formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                         (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7
                         requestor/petitioner reply).
20....................  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
                         informs the requestor 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,'' no ``need to
                         know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
                         deadline for requestor/petitioner 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. 2012-22307 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P