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, 38771-38780 [2015-16223]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38771-38780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16223]



[[Page 38771]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0154]


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 eight amendment requests. The amendment 
requests are for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Beaver 
Valley Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2; Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Salem Nuclear Generating 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 
Nos. 1 and 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3; and Callaway 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).

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 6, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 8, 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 necessary to respond to this 
notice must request document access by July 17, 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-2015-0154. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0154 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-2015-0154.
     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-2015-0154, 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 posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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.

[[Page 38772]]

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in 
the Federal Register. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

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

[[Page 38773]]

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 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, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15120A290.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications related to the 
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios. The proposed changes result 
from a cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of 
PBAPS Unit 3, in the upcoming Cycle 21. The re-analysis was performed 
to accommodate operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit 
Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based on a separate license 
amendment request (LAR) dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML14247A503, redacted to remove proprietary information).
    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 with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 38774]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum 
Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical 
Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific 
thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed 
in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application for 
Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
    The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to reasonably assure 
that, during normal operation and during anticipated operational 
transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not 
experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. The new 
SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to boiling transition.
    The MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] safety limit is 
reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The 
analyses for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Unit 3 Cycle 
21, with the addition of operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain, 
have concluded that a two recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of 
>=1.15, based on the application of Global Nuclear Fuel's NRC-
approved MCPR safety limit methodology, will reasonably assure that 
this acceptance criterion is met. For single recirculation loop 
operation, a MCPR safety limit of >=1.15 also reasonably assures 
that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are 
presented and controlled in accordance with the PBAPS Unit 3 Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR).
    The requested TS changes do not involve any additional plant 
modifications or operational changes that could affect system 
reliability or performance or that could affect the probability of 
operator error beyond those associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS 
Accession No. ML14247A503]. The requested changes do not affect any 
postulated accident precursors, do not affect any accident 
mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation 
mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes 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 SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to reasonably 
assure that during normal operation and during anticipated 
operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core 
do not experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. 
The new SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC-approved methodology 
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application 
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. 
The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of operation, any 
changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications beyond those 
associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503]. 
The proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be 
acceptable for Cycle 21 operation with the MELLLA+ operating domain. 
The core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-
approved methods. The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods for 
establishing the core operating limits do not result in the creation 
of any new precursors to an accident. Therefore, this 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.
    There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety 
previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to 
the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology 
discussed in NEDE-24011-P-A, ``General Electric Standard Application 
for Reactor Fuel,'' Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. 
The SLMCPRs reasonably assure that, during normal operation and 
during anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all 
fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition if the 
limits are not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding 
integrity.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 6, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15084A346 and ML15127A202, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would change the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Operating License. 
Specifically, the proposed license amendment would revise the Cyber 
Security Plan, Milestone 8, full implementation date as set forth in 
the cyber security plan implementation schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed 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 plan 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.

[[Page 38775]]

    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 the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, Ohio 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: October 3, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML14283A125.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the MNGP Technical Specifications and approve 
certain analytical methods to support operation in the expanded power-
flow operating domain described as the Extended Flow Window (EFW).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis 
Accidents occurring is not affected by the EFW operating domain 
because MNGP will continue to comply with the regulatory and design 
basis criteria established for plant equipment. Based on the EFW 
domain representing the same region as the Maximum Extended Load 
Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+), there is no change in 
consequences of postulated accidents when operating in the EFW 
operating domain compared to the operating domain previously 
evaluated. The results of accident evaluations remain within the NRC 
approved acceptance limits.
    The spectrum of postulated transients has been investigated and 
is shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. 
In the area of fuel and core design, the Safety Limit Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is still met. Continued compliance 
with the SLMCPR will be confirmed on a cycle specific basis 
consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC. Challenges to the 
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary were evaluated for the extended 
operating domain conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and 
radiation) and were found to meet their acceptance criteria for 
allowable stresses and overpressure margin.
    Evaluations have also show that the consequences of the Loss of 
Coolant Accident (LOCA) are not exacerbated by operation in the EFW 
domain.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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.
    Equipment that could be affected by the EFW operating domain has 
been evaluated. Aside from small changes to plant setpoints, the 
only physical change that is proposed involves installation of an 
electrical jumper that had been previously approved and installed 
for several operating cycles. No new operating mode, safety-related 
equipment lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was 
identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been 
evaluated and no new or different kind of accident has been 
identified. The EFW operating domain uses developed technology and 
applies it within the capabilities of existing plant safety-related 
equipment in accordance with the regulatory criteria. No new 
accident or event precursor has been identified.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The EFW operating domain affects only design and operational 
margins. Challenges to the fuel, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
and containment were evaluated for the EFW operating domain 
conditions. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design 
and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on affected structures, 
systems and components (including the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary) will remain within their design basis event categories. No 
NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded.
    Because the MNGP configuration and responses to transients and 
postulated accidents do not result in exceeding the presently-
approved NRC acceptance limits, the proposed changes do not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: November 25, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 20, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15070A007 and ML15110A420, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8, full 
implementation date as set forth in the Fort Calhoun Station cyber 
security plan implementation schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This amendment proposes a change to the Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS)/Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Cyber Security Program 
(CSP) Milestone 8 (MS8) full implementation date as set forth in the 
CSP Implementation Schedule and associated regulatory commitment. 
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.

[[Page 38776]]

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This amendment proposes a change to the CSP MS8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule 
and associated regulatory commitment. 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 commitment. 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.

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

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A201.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendments would revise Technical Specification 3/4.3.3, ``Reactor Trip 
System Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3-1, Action 2, to allow one channel 
to be bypassed for up to 4 hours for surveillance testing and would 
establish two new action notes for the power range nuclear 
instrumentation in Table 4.3-1, which would exclude solid state 
protection system input relays from the surveillance testing when the 
bypass test capability is used to perform the surveillance. The 
proposed changes would support the installation and use of bypass test 
capability for the power range nuclear instrumentation.
    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, with the NRC staff's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The power range (PR) nuclear instrumentation is not an accident 
initiator or precursor. The PR nuclear instrumentation provides 
indication and plant protection through a reactor trip. The reactor 
trip is part of the plant's accident mitigation response. With the 
existing system, analog channel comparators are placed in the 
tripped condition for channel testing. This changes the normal two-
out-of-four coincidence trip logic to a one-out-of-three trip logic. 
In this condition, a human error, channel failure, or spurious 
transient in a redundant channel could result in a reactor trip. 
Testing the PR nuclear instrumentation channels in bypass eliminates 
the spurious reactor trip because the trip logic becomes two-out-of-
three; thereby retaining the two channels required to actuate the 
protective function.
    The proposed change does not affect how the Reactor Trip System 
(RTS) functions. The proposed change does not alter or prevent any 
structures, systems, or components from performing their intended 
design basis function(s) to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the applicable acceptance criteria. 
Surveillance testing in the bypass condition will not cause any 
design or analysis acceptance criteria to be exceeded.
    PR channel testing in bypass does not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed change does not increase the types or 
amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, or 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures. The change is consistent with safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences. Implementation of the PR 
nuclear instrumentation bypass testing capability does not affect 
the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for the 
mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of a design 
basis accident. The plant response as assumed in the safety analyses 
is unaffected by this change.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The manner in which the RTS provides plant protection is not 
changed. Surveillance testing in bypass does not affect accident 
initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety 
analyses. The PR nuclear instrumentation will continue to have the 
same setpoints. No new failure modes are created for any plant 
equipment. The bypass test instrumentation has been designed and 
qualified to applicable regulatory and industry standards. Fault 
conditions, failure detection, reliability, and equipment 
qualification have been considered. Existing accident scenarios 
remain unchanged and new or different accident scenarios are not 
created. The types of accidents defined in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to represent the credible spectrum 
of events analyzed to determine safe plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Safety analyses are not changed or modified as a result of the 
proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes to reflect installed 
PR nuclear instrumentation bypass test capability. The changes do 
not alter the manner in which the safety limits, limiting safety 
system setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. Margins associated with the applicable safety analyses 
acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety analyses 
remain bounding; their assumptions and conclusions are not affected 
by performing PR nuclear instrumentation surveillance testing in 
bypass. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses continue 
to remain available to perform their required mitigation functions. 
The impact of testing in bypass upon reactor safety was previously 
evaluated by the NRC during their review of WCAP-10271-P-A [titled 
``Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out of Service Times 
for the Reactor Protection Instrumentation System''], and determined 
to be acceptable.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

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

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania


[[Page 38777]]


    Date of amendment request: December 2, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 12, 2015, and May 4, 2015. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14336A246, ML15044A053, 
and ML15124A668, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This request contains sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would 
revise the SSES Unit 1 and Unit 2 Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8, 
full implementation date as set forth in the SSES cyber security plan 
implementation schedule.
    On June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the 
name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC, to Susquehanna 
Nuclear, LLC. This amendment was issued subsequent to an Order issued 
on April 10, 2015, to SSES approving an indirect license transfer. As 
such, all references in the basis for proposed no significant hazards 
consideration below to PPL Susquehanna, LLC, have been replaced with 
references to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, and are shown in square 
brackets [ ].
    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, with the NRC staff's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment proposes a change to the [Susquehanna Nuclear, 
LLC, (Susquehanna)] Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 (M8) full 
implementation date as set forth in the [Susquehanna] CSP 
implementation schedule. The revision of the full implementation 
date for the [Susquehanna] 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 [Susquehanna] 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 [Susquehanna] Cyber Security Plan 
implementation schedule will not alter previously evaluated design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, 
modify the function of the plant safety-related SSCs, or affect how 
any plant safety-related SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The implementation of the [Susquehanna] CSP does not introduce 
new equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, 
and no new equipment failure modes are created. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No
    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 amendment 
does not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and does not 
alter the way the plant is operated. The [Susquehanna] CSP provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber-attacks. 
The proposed amendment does not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment has no effect on the structural integrity of 
the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment 
structure. Based on the above considerations, the proposed amendment 
does 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 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: Damon D. Obie, Assoc. General Counsel, Talen 
Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton Street, Suite 150, Allentown, 
Pennsylvania 18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: March 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15090A436.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Section 2.1.1.2 of the Technical Specifications 
(TSs), changing the value of the safety limit minimum critical power 
ratio (SLMCPR) for two-loop operation from the current 1.09 to 1.06, 
and for single-loop operation from the current 1.11 to 1.08. The 
proposed revised values are supported by the application of the 
methodology approved previously for BFN Unit 3 by Amendment No. 270, 
dated July 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML1411A286).
    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 TS revision is based on the implementation of a 
previously approved methodology. As such, it involves no changes to 
the operation of any system or component during normal, accident, or 
transient operating conditions. The change does not affect the 
initiators of any [previously evaluated] accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed reduction of the SLMCPR values is based upon 
previously approved methodologies 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 change does not introduce a new or 
different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the 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 SLMCPR 
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.
    The reduction of the SLMCPR values does not change the 
requirement that no more than 0.1% of fuel rods in the core 
experience boiling transition during normal operation and 
anticipated operational occurrences.

[[Page 38778]]

    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, WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15120A482.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan, Milestone 8, full 
implementation date as set forth in the Callaway cyber security plan 
implementation schedule.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1. The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature as it only 
involves extending the timeframe for final implementation of the 
cyber security plan for Callaway. It involves no change to the 
intended plan itself. The 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 that affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed 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.
    The proposed change to the Callaway Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change 
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications that could 
introduce new failure modes leading or contributing to a new or 
different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3. The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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 change to 
the Callaway Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    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

[[Page 38779]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June 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).

[[Page 38780]]

 
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. 2015-16223 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P