22926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

buster process. The assumptions that 

underlie this series are that cyber space 

is an adversarial domain, that the 

adversary is tenacious, clever, and 

capable, and that re-examining cyber 

security solutions in the context of these 

assumptions will result in key insights 

that will lead to the novel solutions we 

desperately need. To ensure that our 

discussion has the requisite adversarial 

flavor, we are inviting researchers who 

develop solutions of the type under 

discussion, and researchers who exploit 

these solutions. The goal is to engage in 

robust debate of topics generally 

believed to be true to determine to what 

extent that claim is warranted. The 

adversarial nature of these debates is 

meant to ensure the threat environment 

is reflected in the discussion in order to 

elicit innovative research concepts that 

will have a greater chance of having a 

sustained positive impact on our cyber 

security posture. 

The fourth topic to be explored in this 

series is ‘‘Abnormal Behavior Detection 

Finds Malicious Actors.’’ The workshop 

on this topic will be held in the 

Washington, DC area on June 20, 2011. 

Assertion: ‘‘Abnormal Behavior 

Detection Finds Malicious Actors.’’ 

In an effort to reduce losses due to 

fraud, financial services companies have 

been fairly successful in establishing 

fraud detection analytics, based on 

abnormal behavior identification, which 

identify financial transactions that seem 

out of norm for a particular financial 

services customer. For example, credit 

card companies acting on this 

information will contact cardholders to 

validate anomalous behavior, or if costs 

are high, and users unavailable, can 

freeze accounts until the anomaly is 

investigated. In this way, they can 

curtail the loss due to prolonged invalid 

use of a credit card. Fraud detection 

algorithms (based on user behavior 

models) and procedures immediately set 

off account alarms and/or deny 

additional transactions after they have 

detected a fraudulent or suspicious 

transaction. Depending upon the fraud 

method (e.g., automated gasoline 

purchase), they may not always block 

the first fraudulent transaction on a 

given card. 

Online banking financial institutions 

employ similar behavioral models to 

monitor the size and destinations of 

financial transfers, and/or on-line 

transactions (such as change of address 

or payee) will delay transfers until the 

customer can be reached to confirm the 

transactions and/or provide additional 

authentication. Despite the use of best 

available behavior modeling and 

monitoring, financial institutions 

continue to sustain significant financial 

loss from fraud. Can the field of fraud 

detection (and cybersecurity in general) 

be improved by new technology and 

approaches? 

Fraud detection works on the 

assumption that malicious fiscal 

behavior is a subset of abnormal 

behavior—if the fraudulent user mimics 

the financial behavior of the authorized 

user, these methods do not work. 

Detection methods do not assume that 

malicious behavior is automatically 

distinguishable from unusual behavior 

on the part of authorized users. The 

fraud detection algorithms use the 

financial services customer’s history to 

build a profile of ‘‘normal’’ transactions 

and develop thresholds for unusual 

behavior. The volume of transactions 

allows for reasonable thresholds to be 

established. Fraud detection methods 

rely on strong models of normal 

behavior, or known criminal behavior 

characteristics. The development of 

many of these models is aided by the 

fact that the value of a transaction is 

numeric and allows sets of values to be 

analyzed with well understood 

algorithms. For example, credit card 

purchases have relatively small and 

fixed semantics: Store names are typed, 

businesses are categorized, relationships 

among businesses and purchases by 

card users are fairly easy to establish 

(e.g., people who buy plane tickets may 

also purchase luggage, or may eat out 

more when they are away, or may spend 

more in general while traveling). These 

models enable gradual change in 

behavior to be learned and help drive 

down false alerts. 

Many cyber intrusion detection 

techniques, or insider threat detection 

techniques, aim to achieve similar 

results by using abnormal behavior 

detection as a starting point. Yet, it is an 

open question whether these techniques 

can expect to attain the same broadbased success when applied in the 

broader cyber security domain. The 

domains share an adversarial dynamic 

that might indicate that similar analyses 

could be effective. But do the 

assumptions of the relationship between 

malicious and normal behavior hold 

true? Can we establish a solid footing in 

terms of models of normal transaction 

semantics and transaction value? Does 

the real time nature of cyber decision 

making, and the ease of dynamic 

changes in the criminal’s attack 

signature, present insurmountable 

challenges for behavioral techniques? 

In this workshop, representatives 

from government and industry financial 

organizations will present different 

financial services fraud detection 

mechanisms, strengths, and areas 

needing further development. This will 

allow workshop participants to have a 

common understanding of the state of 

fraud detection practice. 

How To Apply 

If you would like to participate in this 

workshop, please submit (1) a resume or 

curriculum vita of no more than two 

pages which highlights your expertise in 

this area and (2) a one-page paper 

stating your opinion of the assertion and 

exploring new ideas to improve fraud 

detection specifically, and malicious 

cyber behavior in general. The 

workshop will accommodate no more 

than 60 participants, so these brief 

documents need to make a compelling 

case for your participation. Applications 

should be submitted to 

assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov no later 

than 5 p.m. EDT on May 13, 2011. 

Selection and Notification: 

The SCORE committee will select an 

expert group that reflects a broad range 

of opinions on the assertion. Accepted 

participants will be notified by e-mail 

no later than May 25, 2011. We cannot 

guarantee that we will contact 

individuals who are not selected, 

though we will attempt to do so unless 

the volume of responses is 

overwhelming. 

Submitted by the National Science 

Foundation for the National 

Coordination Office (NCO) for 

Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development 

(NITRD) on April 19, 2011. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9877 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–0036; NRC–2009–0278] 

Notice of Availability of Draft 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact for a 

License Amendment to Materials, 

License No. SNM–33, Westinghouse 

Electric Company, LLC, Hematite 

Decommissioning Project, Festus, 

Missouri (TAC NO. J00357) 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

DATES: The public comment period on 

the draft Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) closes on May 25, 2011. 

Written comments should be submitted 

as described in the ADDRESSES section of 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22927 

this notice. Comments received after 

this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the Commission 

is able to assure consideration only for 

comments received on or before May 25, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0278 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. You may submit 

comments by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0278. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail: 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 

Directives Branch (RADB), Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

• Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 

492–3446. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

• NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR): The public may examine and 

have copied, for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available online in the NRC Library at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this page, the public 

can gain entry into ADAMS, which 

provides text and image files of the 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The draft 

Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact is available 

electronically under ADAMS Accession 

Number ML110870992. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: 

Public comments and supporting 

materials related to this notice can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching on Docket ID: NRC–2009– 

0278. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Hayes, Senior Project Manager, 

Decommissioning and Uranium 

Recovery Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555, telephone: 301– 

415–5928; fax number: 301–415–5369; 

e-mail: John.Hayes@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is intending to issue 

a license amendment to special nuclear 

material (SNM) license number SNM– 

33. SNM–33 was issued to 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

(WEC) for the former Hematite Fuel 

Cycle Facility in Hematite, Missouri. 

Since the fuel cycle facility operations 

have ceased, the Hematite site is 

undergoing preparation for site 

decommissioning. The facility is now 

referred to as the Hematite 

Decommissioning Project (HDP). The 

purpose of the proposed amendment is 

to authorize disposal of approximately 

23,000 m3 (30,000 yd3) of soil and 

debris containing low concentrations of 

byproduct material and SNM at the US 

Ecology Idaho, Inc. (USEI) hazardous 

waste disposal facility near Grand View, 

Idaho. WEC requested authority for this 

action on May 21, 2009 (ADAMS No. 

ML091480071), pursuant to Section 

20.2002 of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20.2002), 

‘‘Method of Obtaining Approval of 

Proposed Disposal Procedures.’’ This 

action would also exempt USEI from 

further NRC licensing requirements to 

possess and dispose of byproduct 

material and special nuclear material 

(SNM) identified in WEC’s proposed 

license amendment. Waste generated 

from the proposed action would be 

classified as meeting regulatory 

requirements for unrestricted release or 

as radioactive material and be packaged, 

transported and disposed of based on 

applicable regulations. 

NRC has prepared a draft EA 

(ML110870992) in support of this 

amendment to allow WEC HDP, under 

their current license, to dispose of 

certain low-level waste (LLW) at the 

USEI hazardous waste disposal facility 

in Grand View, Idaho. 

II. EA Summary 

Under 10 CFR 20.2002, WEC proposes 

to dispose of about 23,000 m3 (30,000 

yd3) of LLW from the HDP that contains 

byproduct material and SNM at the 

USEI hazardous waste disposal facility. 

The LLW will be generated as part of 

decommissioning activities, which will 

include exhumation of existing burial 

pits, as described in the Hematite DP. 

There are 40 unlined pits, each of which 

is approximately 12 meters (40 feet) 

long, 6 meters (20 feet) wide, and 3.6 

meters (12 feet) deep. The pits were 

used to dispose of waste generated by 

the former owners of the facility from 

1965 to 1971. In addition, it is estimated 

that there are 20–25 burials for which 

there are no records. These unrecorded 

burials are believed to be in the area 

between the documented Burial Pits and 

the site buildings, under roadways in 

the eastern portion of the central tract 

area of the HDP site. Additional 

impacted material may come from 

underneath the site buildings. 

The NRC staff has prepared the draft 

EA in support of the proposed license 

amendment. The NRC staff considered 

impacts to many aspects of the 

surrounding environment as listed in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

CONSIDERED FOR THE HEMATITE

DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT SITE

AND US ECOLOGY IDAHO, INC. 

Land use Noise 

Transportation Historic and cultural 

resources 

Geology and soils Visual/scenic 

resources 

Water resources Socioeconomics 

Ecological resources Public and occupational health 

Air Quality Waste management 

The NRC has concluded that the 

proposed action to grant a license 

amendment to WEC HDP, and an 

exemption to USEI from the 

requirements for a license under 10 CFR 

30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3 is authorized by 

law and will not endanger life or 

property or the common defense and 

security and is otherwise in the public 

interest. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of this EA, NRC has 

concluded that there are no significant 

environmental impacts and the issuance 

of a license amendment does not 

warrant the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Accordingly, it has been determined 

that a Finding of No Significant Impact 

is appropriate. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the letter requesting the 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS 

accession numbers for the documents 

related to this notice are: 

1. May 21, 2009 Hematite Alternate 

Disposal Request (ML091480071) 

2. July 31, 2009 HDP Environmental 

Report (ML092870403 and 

ML092870405) 

3. Hematite Response to NRC RAIs, 

December 29 2009, (ML100320540) 

4. Response to Additional Information 

Requested for Alternate Waste Disposal 

Authorization, March 31, 2010, 

(ML100950386) 

5. Hematite Soil Contour Data, March 

31, 2010, (ML100950393) 

6. Hematite Additional Information 

and Clarifications Concerning 10 CFR 

20.2002 Alternate Waste Disposal 

Authorization and Exemption for 

Specific Hematite Decommissioning 

Project Waste, May 24, 2010, 

(ML101450240) 

7. Waste Characterization for 

Alternate Disposal Request for 

Decommissioning Soils, December 21, 

2010, (ML103570023) 

If you do not have access to ADAMS 

or if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O–1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of April 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Keith I. McConnell, 

Deputy Director, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9828 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301; NRC– 

2010–0380] 

Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC; 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

2; Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Proposed License 

Amendment To Increase the Maximum 

Reactor Power Level 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an amendment for Renewed 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24 

and DPR–27, issued to NextEra Energy 

Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the licensee) 

for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located 

near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the 

NRC has prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) documenting its 

finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed actions will have no 

significant environmental impact. 

The NRC published a draft EA and 

draft finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI) on the proposed action for 

public comment in the Federal Register 

on December 10, 2010 (75 FR 77010). 

Comments were received on the draft 

EA from: (1) the licensee; (2) members 

of the public; and 3) the Wisconsin 

Public Service Commission. Publicly 

available documents created or received 

at the NRC, including the public 

comments and responses, are available 

online in the NRC Library at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, the public can access the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. The document 

summarizing and addressing the public 

comments is located at ADAMS 

accession number ML110950476. 

Environmental Assessment 

Plant Site and Environs 

The PBNP site is located 

approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) 

east-northeast of the town of Mischot on 

the western shore of Lake Michigan, 

midway along the western shore, near 

the northeastern corner of Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. The City of Green 

Bay is located approximately 25 miles 

(40 kilometers) northwest of PBNP, and 

the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant is located 

approximately 4 miles (6 kilometers) 

north of PBNP on the shore of Lake 

Michigan. The PBNP site is comprised 

of approximately 1,260 acres (510 

hectares), with 104 acres (42 hectares) 

that includes the two nuclear reactors, 

parking and ancillary facilities. 

Approximately 1,050 acres (425 

hectares) are used for agriculture, and 

the remaining land is a mixture of 

woods, wetlands, and open areas. Each 

of the two units at PBNP use 

Westinghouse pressurized water 

reactors. 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

By application dated April 7, 2009, 

the licensee requested an amendment 

for an extended power uprate (EPU) for 

PBNP to increase the licensed thermal 

power level from 1,540 megawatts 

thermal (MWt) to 1,800 MWt for each 

unit, which represents an increase of 

approximately 17 percent above the 

current licensed thermal power and 

approximately 18 percent over the 

original licensed thermal power level. 

This change in core thermal power level 

requires the NRC to amend the facility’s 

operating license. The operational goal 

of the proposed EPU is a corresponding 

increase in electrical output for each 

unit from 519 megawatts electric (MWe) 

to 607 MWe. The proposed action is 

considered an EPU by NRC because it 

exceeds the typical 7 percent power 

increase that can be accommodated with 

only minor plant changes. EPUs 

typically involve extensive 

modifications to the nuclear steam 

supply system. 

The licensee plans to make extensive 

physical modifications to the plant’s 

secondary side to implement the 

proposed EPU over the course of two 

refueling outages currently scheduled 

for spring 2011 and fall 2011. The actual 

power uprate, if approved by the NRC, 

would occur for each unit following the 

respective refueling outages in 2011. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

NextEra stated in their environmental 

report that the proposed action is 

needed to provide the licensee 

flexibility to increase the electrical 

output of PBNP Units 1 and 2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

As part of the licensing process for 

PBNP Units 1 and 2, the NRC published 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES