[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38573-38585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14880]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0138]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of 11 amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for River Bend Station, Unit 1; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1; 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2 (two amendment requests); Donald C. Cook Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Cooper Nuclear Station; Point Beach Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3; and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that 
they involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each 
amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 
information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 7, 2014. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 8, 2014. Any potential party as 
defined in Sec.  2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this 
notice must request document access by July 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0138. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0138 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0138.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0138 in the subject line of your

[[Page 38574]]

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. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Background

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

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

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

[[Page 38575]]

participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 38576]]

information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity 
assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 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 (RBS), Unit 1, West Feliciana 
Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14064A349.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would change the RBS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation 
Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and revise the existing 
operating license physical protection license condition.
    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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) has no 
impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative 
in nature.
    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 NRC staff has concluded the proposed change (1) 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; and (2) 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. In addition, the NRC staff has 
concluded that the proposed change to the CSP Implementation 
Schedule is administrative in nature.
    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 delay of the full 
implementation date for the CSP has no substantive impact because 
other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection for 
the plant during this period of time. Therefore, the NRC staff has 
concluded that there is no change to established safety margins as a 
result of this change. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that 
the proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14008A081.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would change the GGNS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and revise 
the existing operating license physical protection license condition.
    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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) has no 
impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative 
in nature.
    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 NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change (1) does 
not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the

[[Page 38577]]

manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected; and (2) 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. In 
addition, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed change to 
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature.
    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 delay of the full 
implementation date for the CSP has no substantive impact because 
other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection for 
the plant during this period of time. Therefore, the NRC staff has 
concluded that there is no change to established safety margins as a 
result of this change. In addition, the NRC staff has concluded that 
the proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature.
    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: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13354C045.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add an NRC approved topical report 
reference to the list of analytical methods that are used to determine 
the core operating limits for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds a reference to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-
16865-P-A, ``Westinghouse BWR ECCS Evaluation Model Updates: Supplement 
4 to Code Description. Qualification and Application, Revision 1.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.
    TS Section 5.6.5 lists NRC approved analytical methods used at 
DNPS [Dresden Nuclear Power Station] and QCNPS [Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station] to determine core operating limits. The proposed 
change adds an NRC approved topical report reference to the list of 
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5.
    The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 will add a Westinghouse 
methodology to determine the end of lower plenum flashing for 
analysis of a BWR LOCA [boiling-water reactor loss-of-coolant 
accident]. The proposed change will allow DNPS and QCNPS to use the 
most current Westinghouse methodology for determination of the 
APLHGR limits associated with TS 3.2.1, ``Average Planar Linear Heat 
Generation Rate (APLHGR).''
    The addition of an approved analytical method in TS Section 
5.6.5 has no effect on any accident initiator or precursor 
previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the 
core is operated. The NRC approved method ensures that the analysis 
output accurately models the predicted core behavior, has no effect 
on the type or amount of radiation released, and has no effect on 
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. Additionally, 
the NRC approved method does not change any key core parameters that 
influence any accident consequences. Thus, the proposed change does 
not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The methodology conservatively establishes acceptable core 
operating limits such that the consequences of previously analyzed 
events are not increased.
    The proposed change in the list of analytical methods does not 
affect the ability of DNPS and QCNPS to successfully respond to 
previously evaluated accidents and does not affect the radiological 
assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, the radiological 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    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 TS Section 5.6.5 does not affect the 
performance of any DNPS and QCNPS structure, system or component 
credited for mitigating any accident previously evaluated. The NRC 
approved analytical methodology for evaluating the APLHGR limits 
will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or 
the response of the plant equipment to transient conditions. The 
proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, 
modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms.
    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.
    The proposed change will add a reference to the list of 
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5 that can be used to determine 
core operating limits. The new methodology has been previously 
approved by the NRC and accurately establishes the appropriate 
APLHGR limits. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits 
or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated and does not 
change the requirements governing operation or availability of 
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of 
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not impact the level of 
protection currently provided.
    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island 
County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: July 16, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13199A037.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise technical specifications (TS) 4.3.1 to include 
the use of neutron absorbing spent fuel pool

[[Page 38578]]

rack inserts (i.e., NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts) for the purpose 
of criticality control in the spent fuel pools (SFPs) at QCNPS, Units 1 
and 2. This change is being requested due to degradation of the 
Boraflex neutron absorbing material currently being used in the QCNPS 
SFPs.
    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 revises Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1 
to permit installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts in 
spent fuel pool storage rack cells. The change is necessary to 
ensure that, with continued Boraflex degradation over time, the 
effective neutron multiplication factor, keff, is less 
than or equal to 0.95, if the spent fuel pool is fully flooded with 
unborated water as required by 10 CFR 50.68, ``Criticality accident 
requirements.'' Because the proposed change pertains only to the 
spent fuel pool, only those accidents that are related to movement 
and storage of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool could 
potentially be affected by the proposed change.
    The installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does not 
result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident 
previously analyzed because there are no changes in the manner in 
which spent fuel is handled, moved, or stored in the rack cells. The 
probability that a fuel assembly would be dropped is unchanged by 
the installation of the rack inserts. These events involve failures 
of administrative controls, human performance, and equipment 
failures that are unaffected by the presence or absence of Boraflex 
and the rack inserts.
    The installation of NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does not 
result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident 
previously analyzed because there is no change to the fuel 
assemblies that provide the source term used in calculating the 
radiological consequences of a fuel handling accident. In addition, 
consistent with the current design, only one fuel assembly will be 
moved at a time. Thus, the consequences of dropping a fuel assembly 
onto any other fuel assembly or other structure remain bounded by 
the previously analyzed fuel handling accident. The proposed change 
does not affect the effectiveness of the other engineered design 
features, such as filtration systems, that limit the offsite dose 
consequences of a fuel handling accident.
    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.
    Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the QCNPS, Units 1 
and 2 spent fuel pools is a normal activity for which QCNPS has been 
designed and licensed. As part of assuring that this normal activity 
can be performed without endangering the public health and safety, 
the ability to safely accommodate different possible accidents in 
the spent fuel pool have been previously analyzed. These analyses 
address accidents such as radiological releases due to dropping a 
fuel assembly; and potential inadvertent criticality due to 
misloading a fuel assembly. The proposed spent fuel storage 
configuration utilizing the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts does 
not change the method of fuel movement or spent fuel storage and 
does not create the potential for a new accident. The proposed 
change also allows for the continued use of spent fuel pool storage 
rack cells with degraded Boraflex within those spent fuel pool 
storage rack cells; however, no credit is taken for the Boraflex.
    The rack inserts are passive devices. These devices, when inside 
a spent fuel storage rack cell, perform the same function as the 
previously licensed Boraflex neutron absorber panels in that cell. 
The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts do not add any limiting 
structural loads or adversely affect the removal of decay heat from 
the assemblies. No change in total heat load in the spent fuel pool 
is being made. The insert devices will maintain their design 
function over the life of the spent fuel pool. The existing fuel 
handling accident, which assumes the drop of a fuel assembly and 
refueling mast, bounds the drop of a rack insert and/or rack insert 
installation tool. This proposed change does not create the 
possibility of misloading an assembly into a spent fuel storage rack 
cell.
    Based on the above information, 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.
    The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts are being installed to 
restore the spent fuel pool criticality margin, compensating for the 
degraded Boraflex neutron absorber. The NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack 
inserts, once approved and credited, will replace the existing 
Boraflex as the credited neutron absorber for controlling spent fuel 
pool reactivity, even though the Boraflex absorber will remain in 
place.
    QCNPS TS 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' Specification 4.3.1.1.a requires 
the spent fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron 
multiplication factor, keff, less than or equal to 0.95 
when fully flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance 
for uncertainties. Therefore, for spent fuel pool criticality 
considerations, the required safety margin is 5 percent.
    The proposed change ensures, as verified by the associated 
criticality analysis, that keff continues to be less than 
or equal to 0.95, thus preserving the required safety margin of 5 
percent.
    In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel 
assembly, considering the installed NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack 
inserts, remain unchanged as the anticipated fuel damage due to a 
fuel handling accident is unaffected by the addition of the inserts 
in the spent fuel pool storage cells. The proposed change also does 
not increase the capacity of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools 
beyond the current capacity of 3,657 and 3,897 fuel assemblies 
respectively.
    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island 
County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13354C045.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add an NRC approved topical report 
reference to the list of analytical methods that are used to determine 
the core operating limits for QCNPS, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds a reference to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-
16865-P-A, ``Westinghouse BWR ECCS [boiling-water reactor emergency 
core cooling system] Evaluation Model Updates: Supplement 4 to Code 
Description. Qualification and Application, Revision 1.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.

[[Page 38579]]

    TS Section 5.6.5 lists NRC approved analytical methods used at 
DNPS [Dresden Nuclear Power Station] and QCNPS to determine core 
operating limits. The proposed change adds an NRC approved topical 
report reference to the list of analytical methods in TS Section 
5.6.5.
    The proposed change to TS Section 5.6.5 will add a Westinghouse 
methodology to determine the end of lower plenum flashing for 
analysis of a BWR LOCA [boiling-water reactor loss-of-coolant 
accident]. The proposed change will allow DNPS and QCNPS to use the 
most current Westinghouse methodology for determination of the 
APLHGR limits associated with TS 3.2.1, ``Average Planar Linear Heat 
Generation Rate (APLHGR).''
    The addition of an approved analytical method in TS Section 
5.6.5 has no effect on any accident initiator or precursor 
previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the 
core is operated. The NRC approved method ensures that the analysis 
output accurately models the predicted core behavior, has no effect 
on the type or amount of radiation released, and has no effect on 
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. Additionally, 
the NRC approved method does not change any key core parameters that 
influence any accident consequences. Thus, the proposed change does 
not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The methodology conservatively establishes acceptable core 
operating limits such that the consequences of previously analyzed 
events are not increased.
    The proposed change in the list of analytical methods does not 
affect the ability of DNPS and QCNPS to successfully respond to 
previously evaluated accidents and does not affect the radiological 
assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, the radiological 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    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 TS Section 5.6.5 does not affect the 
performance of any DNPS and QCNPS structure, system or component 
credited for mitigating any accident previously evaluated. The NRC 
approved analytical methodology for evaluating the APLHGR limits 
will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or 
the response of the plant equipment to transient conditions. The 
proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, 
modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms.
    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.
    The proposed change will add a reference to the list of 
analytical methods in TS Section 5.6.5 that can be used to determine 
core operating limits. The new methodology has been previously 
approved by the NRC and accurately establishes the appropriate 
APLHGR limits. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits 
or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated and does not 
change the requirements governing operation or availability of 
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of 
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not impact the level of 
protection currently provided.
    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrier County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: January 10, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14015A142.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the CNP, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan 
(CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CNP CSP 
Implementation Schedule. It would also revise the existing operating 
license physical protection license condition.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

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

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

[[Page 38580]]

proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, Michigan 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14078A039.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise CNS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule. It 
would also revise the existing operating license physical protection 
license condition.
    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 CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. The revision of the CNS CSP Implementation 
Schedule does not alter any previously evaluated design basis 
accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify 
the function of plant safety-related structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs), or affect how any plant safety-related SSCs are 
operated, maintained, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of SSCs 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. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. The revision of the CNS CSP Implementation 
Schedule does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or 
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are 
created. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed 
amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the ability of the 
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation to the public. The proposed amendment does not alter the 
way any safety-related SSC functions and does not alter the way the 
plant is operated. The proposed amendment does not introduce any new 
uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties associated with 
any safety limit. The proposed amendment has no effect on the 
structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure 
boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above 
considerations, the proposed amendment will not degrade the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 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: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Manitowac County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2013, as supplemented by letter 
dated September 16, 2013. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML131820453 and ML13259A273, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would provide the NRC's approval for adoption of a new fire 
protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 
CFR 50.48(a), (c), and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, 
Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire Protection for 
Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML092730314). This amendment request also follows the guidance in 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-02, Revision 2, ``Guidance for 
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program 
Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).'' Upon approval, the PBNP fire protection 
program will transition to a new Risk-Informed, Performance-Based (RI-
PB) alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates 
by reference National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 
805). The NFPA 805 fire protection program will supersede the current 
fire protection program licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix R.
    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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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.
    Operation of PBNP [Point Beach Nuclear Plant] in accordance with 
the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The PBNP Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of 
design basis accidents (DBAs) and design basis events (DBEs) at 
PBNP. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility and does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform 
their design function. SSCs required to mitigate DBAs and DBEs and 
to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition will remain capable of performing their design 
functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PPBNP 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 Revision 
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10 
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides 
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection 
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in 
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based 
(RI-PB) requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative 
to 10 CFR 50.48(b), satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design 
Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, meets the underlying 
intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations and 
guidance, achieves defense-in-depth (DID), and meets the goals, 
performance objectives, and performance criteria in Chapter 1 of the

[[Page 38581]]

standard. The small increase in the net CDF [core damage frequency] 
associated with this LAR submittal is consistent with the [intent 
of] the Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 
50.48(c) allows self-approval of fire protection changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in CDF or 
risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of 
the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of this [proposed] amendment 
does not significantly increase the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate DBAs or DBEs 
remain capable of performing their assumed function. Therefore, the 
consequences of any accident or event previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased with the implementation of this [proposed] 
amendment.
    The probability of these accidents and events was not impacted 
by this proposed transition. The radiological consequences were 
evaluated as documented in Section 4.4, Radioactive Release 
Performance Criteria, and Attachment E, NEI 04-02 Radioactive 
Release Transition, which demonstrates that the radiological 
consequences of these accidents and events were not significantly 
increased.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously 
analyzed design basis accidents or events with potential offsite 
radiological consequences were included in the evaluations 
documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter the 
requirements or functions for systems required during design basis 
accidents or events. Implementation of the proposed new fire 
protection licensing basis, which complies with the requirements in 
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205, 
will not result in new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the PBNP facility. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design 
function. SSCs required to mitigate DBAs and DBEs and to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain 
capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PBNP 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 Revision 
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10 
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides 
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection 
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in 
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based 
(RI-PB) requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
    The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated. 
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any kind of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do 
not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate 
a new accident.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created with the implementation of this proposed amendment.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of PBNP 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 analyses 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 DBAs or DBEs in the UFSAR. The 
proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to 
perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the 
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain 
capable of performing their design function.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit PBNP 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 Revision 
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. As endorsed in NRC regulation 10 
CFR 50.48(c) and RG 1.205, the NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides 
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify [fire] protection systems and features that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, fire protection 
features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in 
accordance with NFPA 805 and Revision 2 of NEI 04-02, have been 
performed, including probabilistic risk assessments and fire 
modeling calculations, to demonstrate that the performance-based 
methods do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and 
the common defense and security because the overall approach of NFPA 
805 is consistent with key principles for evaluating license basis 
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with the defense-
in-depth philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety margins.
    Based on this, the implementation of this proposed amendment 
does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed 
changes are evaluated to ensure that the risk and safety margins are 
kept within acceptable limits.
    Therefore, the transition does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC., P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-
0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14133A413 and ML14149A318, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation 
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8 
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all 
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be 
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license physical 
protection license condition.
    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 revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation 
date. 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 is an extension to the completion 
date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself 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 have no impact on

[[Page 38582]]

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 revises the CSP Implementation Schedule. 
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation 
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 
extends the CSP implementation schedule. 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General 
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West 
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14133A472 and ML14149A316, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation 
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8 
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all 
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be 
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license physical 
protection license condition.
    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 revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation 
date. 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 is an extension to the completion 
date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself 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 have 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 revises the CSP Implementation Schedule. 
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation 
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 
extends the CSP implementation schedule. 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General 
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West 
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 27, 2014. Publicly-available versions are available in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A415 and ML14149A317, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation 
schedule to change the completion date for Milestone 8. Milestone 8 
pertains to the date that full implementation of the CSP for all 
safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions will be 
achieved. It would also revise the existing operating license physical 
protection license condition.
    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 revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation 
date. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add 
any initiators, or affect the

[[Page 38583]]

function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change is an extension to the completion date of implementation 
Milestone 8, that in itself 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 have 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 revises the CSP Implementation Schedule. 
This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation 
Milestone 8 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. This change also 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 
extends the CSP implementation schedule. 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: Ralph E. Rodgers, Executive VP and General 
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West 
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

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

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

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrier County, Michigan

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

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

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General 
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the 
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or 
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are 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 requester's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of 
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis 
and specificity for a proffered contention.
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in 
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification 
will contain instructions on

[[Page 38584]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 2014.

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

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information in This Proceeding

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

[[Page 38585]]

 
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. 2014-14880 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P