Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information, 25896-25906 [2014-10365]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25896-25906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10365]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0087]


Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information and Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures 
for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and 
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 nine amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit 1; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2; Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 
Power Plant (two separate amendment requests); Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station; and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. 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) and/
or safeguards information (SGI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 5, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 7, 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 and/or SGI is necessary to respond to this 
notice must request document access by May 16, 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0087. 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-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley J. Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0087 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0087.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at

[[Page 25897]]

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select 
``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced in this document (if the document is available in 
ADAMS) is provided the first time that the document is referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0087 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://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 and/or 
SGI.

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 https://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

[[Page 25898]]

statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in 
proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must 
also provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the 
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment 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 
ten 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 https://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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://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 https://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

[[Page 25899]]

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 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these amendment requests, see 
the applications for amendment which are available for public 
inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 
Publicly-available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Duke Energy 
Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302; Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket 
Nos. 50-400 and 50-261; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, 
Brunswick County, North Carolina; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina; and H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 31, 2014 (publicly-available versions are available 
in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13357A189 and ML14092A293).
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request pertains to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
implementation schedule change in 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.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule for 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 and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule for 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 and does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change revises 
the Cyber Security Plan 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North 
Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester 
County, New York
    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14043A092.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the Indian Point Energy

[[Page 25900]]

Center Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 
full implementation date and revise the existing operating license 
Physical Protection license condition. The CSP Milestone 8 full 
implementation date would be changed from December 15, 2014, to June 
30, 2016.
    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. This change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits, 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the 
CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, 
the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no 
substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide 
adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no 
change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, 
New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13248A517.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would modify the operating license, pursuant to Section 161A 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to permit the licensee's 
security personnel to possess and use weapons, devices, ammunition, or 
other firearms, notwithstanding state, local, and certain federal 
firearms laws that may prohibit such use. The NRC refers to this 
authority as ``stand-alone preemption authority.'' The licensee is 
seeking stand-alone preemption authority for standard weapons presently 
in use at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) 
facility in accordance with the JAFNPP security plans. The weapons that 
are the subject of this amendment request do not include enhanced 
weapons.
    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 create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The LAR [license amendment request] does not require any plant 
modifications, 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.
    The proposed change to JAFNPP's license will not result in any 
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use 
the weapons described in Attachment 1 [Attachment 1, which is included 
in the LAR, is security-related and is not publicly available] and the 
use of the subject weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP 
security plans.
    The proposed change adds a sentence to the JAFNPP license to 
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the 
Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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?
    The LAR does not require any plant modifications, 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.
    The proposed change to JAFNPP's license will not result in any 
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use 
the weapons described in Attachment 1 and the use of the subject 
weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP security plans.
    The proposed change adds a sentence to the JAFNPP license to 
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the 
Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the 
possibility or a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 25901]]

    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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?
    The LAR does not require any plant modifications, 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.
    The proposed change to JAFNPP's license will not result in any 
actual changes at the facility. JAFNPP security personnel already use 
the weapons described in Attachment 1 and the use of the subject 
weapons is already covered under the existing JAFNPP security plans. 
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for 
Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety limits specified 
in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to these 
established safety margins, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change adds a sentence to the JAFNPP license to 
reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the 
Commission. The change is administrative and 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: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, 
New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14036A363.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full 
implementation date and revise the existing operating license Physical 
Protection license condition. The CSP Milestone 8 full implementation 
date would be changed from December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016.
    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. This change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the 
CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. Because there 
is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, 
New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013 (Publicly-available 
portion is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A245), as 
supplemented by letter dated January 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML14035A264).
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
safeguards information (SGI). The amendment would revise Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS). Specifically, the proposed changes involve 
instituting additional protective measures strategies at OCNGS related 
to vitalization of certain portions of the Reactor Building. The 
proposed changes to implement the use of an ``alternative measure'' 
requires prior NRC review and approval under 10 CFR 73.55(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, which is presented below:

[[Page 25902]]

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not involve the 
modification of any plant equipment or affect plant operation. The 
proposed changes will have no impact on any safety-related Structures, 
Systems, and Components (SSC).
    The proposed amendment incorporates the use of an ``alternative 
measure'' for implementing the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 
73.55(b). Instituting the ``alternative measure'' does not involve any 
modifications to safety-related SSC. Rather, the ``alternative 
measure'' describes how the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b) 
are to be implemented in order to ensure a comparable level of safety 
to provide high assurance that activities involving special nuclear 
material are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not 
constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. In 
addition, the ``alternative measure'' describes how the required 
physical protection program elements will be implemented to protect 
against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage and shall 
establish, maintain, and implement an effective insider mitigation 
program. Instituting the proposed ``alternate measure'' will not alter 
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs. 
The proposed changes do not alter accident analysis assumptions, add 
any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner 
in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. No plant modifications or changes are considered necessary 
at this time in support of implementation of the proposed ``alternate 
measure'' as described in this license amendment request. However, in 
the event that future modifications or changes are deemed appropriate 
to ensure effective protective strategies in maintaining vitalization 
of the [Reactor Building] RB, they would be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59 
to determine if a license amendment is required. Any changes would also 
be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.54(p) to determine if there is a decrease in 
the safeguards effectiveness in the site Security Plan. Prior NRC 
approval would be obtained if required by these evaluations.
    Therefore, the proposed changes involving implementation of the 
described ``alternative measure'' do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant SSC. The proposed changes do not affect plant 
equipment or accident analyses.
    The proposed changes to institute the use of an ``alternative 
measure'' for implementing the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 
73.55(b) provide assurance that safety-related SSCs are adequately 
protected. Implementation of the proposed ``alternative measure'' and 
inclusion of the associated elements in the Security Plan and in other 
security-related documentation when approved do not result in the need 
for any new or different UFSAR design basis accident analysis. The 
proposed changes do not introduce new equipment that could create a new 
or different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are 
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed 
changes to institute the ``alternative measure.''
    Therefore, the proposed changes involving implementation of the 
described ``alternative measure'' do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the 
safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes 
involving implementation of the ``alternative measure.''
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in 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 changes would not alter 
the way any safety-related SSC functions and would not alter the way 
the plant is operated. The proposed changes continue to provide high 
assurance that activities involving special nuclear material are not 
inimical to the common defense and security and do not constitute an 
unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. In addition, 
instituting the elements that comprise the ``alternative measure'' will 
continue to ensure that the required physical protection program 
elements will be implemented to protect against the design basis threat 
of radiological sabotage and shall continue to establish, maintain, and 
implement an effective insider mitigation program. The proposed changes 
do not introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing 
uncertainties associated with any safety limit. The proposed changes 
have no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. The 
proposed changes would not degrade the confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed changes involving implementation of the 
described ``alternative measure'' do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kenneth 
Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: December 18, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A067.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant 
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits.'' TVA submitted this 
license amendment request to satisfy a commitment to prepare and submit

[[Page 25903]]

revised BFN Unit 1, P/T limits prior to the start of the period of 
extended operation, as discussed in Section 4.2.5 provided in ``Browns 
Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN)--Units 1, 2 and 3--Application for Renewed 
Operating Licenses,'' dated December 31, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML040060359). Specifically, the proposed change replaces the current 
sets of TS Figures 3.4.9-1, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for 
Mechanical Heatup, Cooldown following Shutdown, and Reactor Critical 
Operations,'' and 3.4.9-2, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Reactor 
In-Service Leak and Hydrostatic Testing.'' The figures proposed to be 
replaced consist of two sets of P/T limit curves, one set valid up to 
12 effective full-power years (EFPYs) of operation and another set 
valid from 12 to 16 EFPYs of operation. The proposed change replaces 
the current curves with a set of figures valid for operation up to 25 
EFPYs and another set valid for operation from greater than 25 EFPYs to 
less than 38 EFPYs.
    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 any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that have 
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves 
were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. The proposed 
changes deal exclusively with the reactor vessel P/T curves, which 
define the permissible regions for operation and testing. Failure of 
the reactor vessel is not considered as a design basis accident. 
Through the design conservatisms used to calculate the P/T curves, 
reactor vessel failure has a low probability of occurrence and is not 
considered in the safety analyses. The proposed changes adjust the 
reference temperature for the limiting material to account for 
irradiation effects and provide the same level of protection as 
previously evaluated and approved.
    The adjusted reference temperature calculations were performed in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G using 
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, ``Calculational 
and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML10890301),'' to reflect use of the operating 
limits to no more than 38 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). These 
changes do not alter or prevent the operation of equipment required to 
mitigate any accident analyzed in the BFN Final Safety Analysis Report. 
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 changes are to accept operating parameters that have 
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves 
were developed based on NRC approved methodologies. The proposed 
changes to the reactor vessel P/T curves do not involve a modification 
to plant equipment. No new failure modes are introduced. There is no 
effect on the function of any plant system, and no new system 
interactions are introduced by this change. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are to accept operating parameters that have 
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to P/T curves 
were developed based on NRC approved methodologies. The proposed curves 
conform to the guidance contained in RG-1.190, and maintain the safety 
margins specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Duke 
Energy Florida, Inc., Docket No. 50-302; Duke Energy Progress, Inc., 
Docket Nos. 50-400 and 50-261; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 
1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina; Crystal River Unit 3 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida; Shearon Harris 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina; and H. B. 
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South 
Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 
50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, 
Westchester County, New York
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive 
unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)). 
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 
2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI 
regulations.
    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 or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice 
may request access to SUNSI or SGI. 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 or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI, SGI, or both 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

[[Page 25904]]

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 and/or SGI 
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);
    (3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or 
entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the 
need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this 
adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why 
publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be 
sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention; and
    (4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who 
would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the 
identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the 
requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain 
the following information:
    (a) A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know'' 
the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent 
with the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the 
statement must explain:
    (i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is 
necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a 
specific contention in this proceeding; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to 
meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff redaction of 
information from requested documents before their release may be 
appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do 
not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a 
requestor's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention or non-adjudicatory 
access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the 
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its 
counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or 
assistant who satisfies these criteria.
    (b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive 
Positions'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The 
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to 
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 
10 CFR part 2, Subpart G and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the 
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form 
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic 
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure 
Web site that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel 
Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should 
contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-7000.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requestor will be asked to provide his or her full name, 
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, 
and email address. After providing this information, the requestor 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original 
ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form 
FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by 
calling 1-630-829-9565, or by email to Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The 
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI 
must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history 
records check.
    (d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $238.00 \4\ to 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the 
request for access has been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Office of 
Personnel Managements adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) If the requestor or any individual who will have access to SGI 
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals 
that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background 
check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a 
statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and 
explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption 
applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, 
Personnel Security Branch, will make final determination whether the 
claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the 
Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status 
prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the 
background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; 
however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need 
to know, are still applicable.
    Note: Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 
C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following 
address:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Personnel Security Branch,
Mail Stop TWFN-03-B46M,
11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.

    These documents and materials should not be included with the 
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter 
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.
    D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the 
requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and 
accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The 
NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
    E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, the NRC staff will 
determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
    F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines 
that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the NRC staff 
will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been 
granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the 
requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other 
conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These 
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order setting forth 
terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent 
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to 
SUNSI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that 
the requestor

[[Page 25905]]

has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, the Office of Administration 
will then determine, based upon completion of the background check, 
whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required 
for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of Administration 
determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and 
reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requestor in writing. The 
notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as 
the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions 
may include, but not be limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure 
Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order \6\ by each individual who 
will be granted access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 180 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the 
requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to 
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, 
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location 
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI 
protection requirements.
    I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI or SGI 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 or SGI contentions by that 
later deadline.
    J. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC 
staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or 
after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse 
determination regarding the proposed recipient(s) trustworthiness and 
reliability for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed 
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness 
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided 
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an 
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
    (3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination with respect to access to SUNSI by filing a challenge 
within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding 
officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has 
been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 
unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law 
Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another 
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with 
that officer.
    (4) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's or Office of 
Administration's adverse determination with respect to access to SGI by 
filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv). 
Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.311.
    K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI or SGI 
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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI/SGI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI or SGI, 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. The attachment 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 28th of April 2014.

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

   Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
              and 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) and/or Safeguards
                            Information (SGI) 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;
                            demonstrating that access should be granted
                            (e.g., showing technical competence for
                            access to SGI); and, for SGI, including
                            application fee for fingerprint/background
                            check.
60.......................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                            intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
                            of standing; (ii) all contentions whose
                            formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                            and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for
                            intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner
                            reply).

[[Page 25906]]

 
20.......................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
                            staff informs the requestor of the staff's
                            determination whether the request for access
                            provides a reasonable basis to believe
                            standing can be established and shows (1)
                            need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for SGI.
                            (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).
                            If NRC staff makes the finding of need to
                            know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC
                            staff begins background check (including
                            fingerprinting for a criminal history
                            records check), information processing
                            (preparation of redactions or review of
                            redacted documents), and readiness
                            inspections.
25.......................  If NRC staff finds no ``need,'' no ``need to
                            know,'' or no likelihood of standing, the
                            deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a
                            motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                            staff's denial of access; NRC staff files
                            copy of access determination with the
                            presiding officer (or Chief Administrative
                            Judge or other designated officer, as
                            appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need''
                            for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the
                            proceeding whose interest independent of the
                            proceeding would be harmed by the release of
                            the information to file a motion seeking a
                            ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                            access.
30.......................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                            reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.......................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                            need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                            complete information processing and file
                            motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                            Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                            licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
                            for SUNSI.
190......................  (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing,
                            need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness
                            and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to
                            file motion for Protective Order and draft
                            Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a
                            determination that the proposed recipient of
                            SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note:
                            Before the Office of Administration makes an
                            adverse determination regarding access to
                            SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided
                            an opportunity to correct or explain
                            information.
205......................  Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a
                            final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or
                            reliability determination either before the
                            presiding officer or another designated
                            officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
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 and/or
                            SGI consistent with decision issuing the
                            protective order.
A + 28...................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                            development depends upon access to SUNSI and/
                            or SGI. 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 or SGI contentions by that
                            later deadline.
A + 53...................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                            contentions whose development depends upon
                            access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
A + 60...................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                            reply to answers.
>A + 60..................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-10365 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P