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, 25715-25723 [2015-09761]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25715-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09761]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0092]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of five amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Kewaunee Power Station; Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3; 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Surry Power Station, Units 1 
and 2; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 
2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; 
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Davis-Besse 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3; and 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. The NRC proposes to 
determine that each amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 4, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 6, 2015. 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

[[Page 25716]]

necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by May 
15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0092. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0092 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0092.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at 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 (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-2015-0092, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 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.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible

[[Page 25717]]

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 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 unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

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 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 NRC 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

[[Page 25718]]

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 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 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 
online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection 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.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14329A313.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP), Milestone 8 
(MS8), full implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation 
Schedule for the following plants: Kewaunee Power Station; Millstone 
Power Station, Units 2 and 3; North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2; 
and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The amendment proposes a change to the CSP Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP implementation schedule. 
The revision of the full implementation date for the 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 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 protected from cyber attacks. The revision of the CSP 
implementation schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how 
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    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 CSP implementation 
schedule does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or 
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure

[[Page 25719]]

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.
    Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed revision to 
the CSP implementation schedule does not alter the way any safety-
related SSC functions and does not alter the way the plant is 
operated. The CSP provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are 
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed revision to the CSP 
implementation schedule does not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed revision to the CSP implementation schedule 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 revision to the CSP 
implementation schedule 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 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, Virginia 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

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. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

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 No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14241A526.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment requests NRC approval of a change to the Cyber Security Plan 
(CSP), Milestone 8 (MS8), full implementation date as set forth in the 
CSP Implementation Schedule as approved by the NRC in letters dated 
August 19, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A037), and October 24, 2013 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13295A467).
    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:

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has evaluated whether or 
not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the 
proposed amendments by focusing on the three standards set forth in 
10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed below:
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Milestone 8 (MS8) full implementation date as set forth in the CSP 
Implementation Schedule and associated regulatory commitments. The 
revision of the MS8 implementation date for the CSP does not involve 
modifications to any safety-related structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs). The revision of the CSP Implementation Schedule 
will not alter previously evaluated design basis accident analysis 
assumptions, add any accident initiators, modify the function of the 
plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how any plant safety-related 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule 
and associated regulatory commitments. The revision of the MS8 full 
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to 
any safety-related SSCs. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule 
and associated regulatory commitments. The revision of the MS8 full 
implementation date for the CSP does not involve modifications to 
any safety-related SSCs. 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.
    Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment(s) 
does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding 
of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 
Illinois 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

[[Page 25720]]

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
    Date of amendment request: March 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15072A052.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment requests revision of the operating license to extend the 
completion date for full implementation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear 
Power Station Cyber Security Plan from July 1, 2016, until the end of 
December 2017.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment extends the completion date for milestone 
8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation schedule. Revising 
the full implementation date for the CSP does not involve 
modifications to any safety related structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs). The implementation schedule provides a timeline 
for fully implementing the 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 protected from cyber-attacks. The revision of the CSP 
Implementation Schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how 
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, tested, or 
inspected.
    As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and 
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, 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 does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation or involve a physical modification to the plant. New 
equipment is not installed with the proposed amendment, nor does the 
proposed amendment cause existing equipment to be operated in a new 
or different manner. The change to cyber security implementation 
plan milestone 8 is administrative in nature and relies on the 
significant protection against cyber-attacks that has been gained 
through the implementation of CSP milestones 1 through 7. Since the 
proposed amendment does not involve a change to the plant design or 
operation, no new system interactions are created by this change. 
The proposed changes do not result in any new failure modes, and 
thus cannot initiate an accident different from those previously 
evaluated.
    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 amendment does not affect the performance of any 
structures, systems or components as described in the design basis 
analyses. The change to milestone 8 of the cyber security 
implementation plan is administrative in nature. The proposed change 
does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or involve a 
physical modification to the plant. The proposed amendment does not 
introduce changes to limits established in the accident analysis. 
Since there is no impact to any SSCs, or any maintenance or 
operational practice, there is also no reduction in any margin of 
safety.
    As the proposed change does not directly impact SSCs, and 
milestones 1 through 7 provide significant protection against cyber-
attacks, 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 
44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: January 27, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15040A698.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
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.'' The TVA submitted this license 
amendment request to satisfy a commitment to prepare and submit revised 
BFN, Unit 3, P/T limits prior to the start of the period of extended 
operation, as discussed 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 affects the current sets of TS 
Figures 3.4.9-1, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Mechanical Heat up, 
Cooldown following Shutdown, and Reactor Critical Operations,'' and 
3.4.9-2, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits for Reactor In-Service Leak and 
Hydrostatic Testing.'' The proposed change replaces the current set 
valid up to 20 effective full power years (EFPYs) with a new set valid 
up to 38 EFPYs, and replaces the current set valid up to 28 EFPYs with 
a new set valid up to 54 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 limit curves were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. 
The proposed changes deal exclusively with the reactor vessel P/T 
limit 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 limit 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 50 Appendix G, using 
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.190, ``Calculational 
and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron 
Fluence,'' to reflect use of the operating limits to no more than 54 
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.

[[Page 25721]]

    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 accepted operating parameters that have 
been approved in previous license amendments. The changes to the P/T 
limit curves were developed based on NRC-approved methodologies. The 
proposed changes to the reactor vessel P/T limit 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 accepted 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 Regulatory 
Guide 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining 
Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' and maintain the safety margins 
specified in 10 CFR 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 Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
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: December 11, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14363A158.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety 
Limits],'' of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for all three units, 
to lower the value of the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit from 
the current 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig. The 
proposed lowering of this safety limit will effectively expand the 
validity range for the units' critical power correlations and the 
calculation of the minimum critical power ratio. Specifically, the 
revised value of 585 psig is consistent with the lower range of the 
critical power correlations currently in use at the units. The revised 
value will also adequately bound a pressure regulator failure open 
transient event. No hardware, design, or operational change is involved 
with this proposed amendment.
    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 performed its own analysis, which is 
presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the safety limit in TS Section 2.1.1 will 
continue to support the validity of the existing critical power 
correlations applied at the units. The proposed TS revision involves 
no change to the operation of any system or component during normal, 
accident, or transient operating conditions. The proposed amendment 
does not involve any modification to plant hardware, design, or 
operation.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit 
from 785 psig to 585 psig is an administrative change and does not 
involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating 
characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not introduce a new or 
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of plant 
structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for 
safe operation and setpoints of equipment relied upon to respond to 
transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in 
reactor dome pressure does not change the requirements governing 
operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to 
preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the 
behavior of the plant equipment, which remains unchanged.
    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 
its own analysis, determines 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 Dr., WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

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

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

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. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York


[[Page 25722]]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

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 No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama

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

    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 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

[[Page 25723]]

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 21st day of April, 2015.

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

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

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

[FR Doc. 2015-09761 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P