Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61621 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301; NRC– 

2023–0132] 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

2 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Exemption; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing an 

exemption from certain portions of the 

acceptance criteria for emergency core 

cooling systems to allow the use of a 

risk-informed analysis to evaluate the 

effects of debris in containment 

following a loss-of-coolant accident for 

the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2 (Point Beach) located in 

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The 

exemption is in response to a request 

dated July 29, 2022, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 9, 2023, from NextEra 

Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the 

licensee). 

DATES: The exemption was issued on 

August 28, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2023–0132 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0132. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the ‘‘For Further Information 

Contact’’ section of this document. 

• 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 

‘‘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, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott P. Wall, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–2855; email: 

Scott.Wall@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the exemption is attached. 

Dated: September 1, 2023. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Scott P. Wall, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

Attachment—Exemption 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

2 

Exemption 

I. Background 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC 

(NextEra, the licensee) is the holder of 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27, which 

authorize operation of the Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point 

Beach), respectively. The licenses 

provide, among other things, that the 

facility is subject to all rules, 

regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. The facility consists of two 

pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) 

located in Manitowoc County, 

Wisconsin. 

In 1996, the NRC identified Generic 

Safety Issue (GSI)-191, ‘‘Assessment of 

Debris Accumulation on PWR Sump 

Performance,’’ associated with the 

effects of debris accumulation on PWR 

sump performance during design-basis 

accidents. As part of the actions to 

resolve GSI–191, the NRC issued 

Generic Letter (GL) 2004–02, ‘‘Potential 

Impact of Debris Blockage on 

Emergency Recirculation during Design 

Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water 

Reactors,’’ dated September 13, 2004 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML042360586), to 

holders of operating licenses for PWRs. 

In GL 2004–02, the NRC staff requested 

that these licensees perform an 

evaluation of their emergency core 

cooling system (ECCS) and containment 

spray system (CSS) recirculation 

functions considering the potential for 

debris-laden coolant to be circulated by 

the ECCS and the CSS after a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) or high-energy 

line break inside containment and, if 

appropriate, take additional actions to 

ensure system function. GL 2004–02 

required that these licensees provide a 

written response to the NRC, pursuant 

to title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.54(f), 

describing the results of their evaluation 

and any modifications made, or 

planned, to ensure ECCS and CSS 

system function during recirculation 

following a design-basis event, or any 

alternate action proposed, and the basis 

for its acceptability. 

II. Request/Action 

By application dated July 29, 2022 

(ML22210A086), as supplemented by 

letter dated June 9, 2023 

(ML23163A022), the licensee, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ 

requested, in part, an exemption from 

certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, 

‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core 

cooling systems for light-water nuclear 

power reactors,’’ to allow the use of a 

risk-informed methodology instead of 

the traditional deterministic 

methodology to resolve the concerns 

associated with GSI–191 and to respond 

to GL 2004–02 for Point Beach. 

III. Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to the 

public health and safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security and (2) special 

circumstances are present. Under 10 

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special 

circumstances are present when 

‘‘[a]pplication of the regulation in the 

particular circumstances would not 

serve the underlying purpose of the rule 

or is not necessary to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the rule.’’ Under 

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), special 

circumstances are present when 

‘‘[c]ompliance would result in undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated.’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61622 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

NextEra submitted a request for 

exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 for Point 

Beach from certain requirements of 10 

CFR 50.46(a)(1) as it relates to using 

specific deterministic methodology to 

evaluate the effects of debris generated 

from breaks on long-term core cooling. 

The licensee stated that the scope of the 

requested exemption applies to all 

debris effects addressed in the riskinformed element of the Point Beach 

methodology described in NextEra’s 

July 29, 2022, submittal responding to 

GL 2004–02. NextEra stated that the 

addressed debris effects are those 

associated with breaks that potentially 

generate and transport debris amounts 

that exceed the Point Beach-specific 

tested/analyzed debris limits. 

The licensee is requesting an 

exemption related to these breaks to 

allow evaluation of the debris effects 

using a risk-informed methodology in 

lieu of a deterministic methodology. 

The licensee stated that the key 

elements of the exemption request are 

that (1) the exemption will apply only 

to the effects of debris as described in 

Enclosure 4 of the submittal dated July 

29, 2022, and (2) the exemption will 

apply to any breaks that can generate 

and transport debris that is not bounded 

by Point Beach-specific tested/analyzed 

debris limits, provided that the change 

in core damage frequency (DCDF) and 

the change in large early release 

frequency (DLERF) remain within the 

acceptance guidelines identified as 

Region III of Regulatory Guide (RG) 

1.174, ‘‘An Approach for Using 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment in RiskInformed Decisions on Plant-Specific 

Changes to the Licensing Basis,’’ 

Revision 3, dated January 2018 

(ML17317A256). 

The NRC staff performed an 

integrated review of the risk-informed 

approach proposed to be used in lieu of 

a deterministic methodology by the 

requested exemption, considering the 

five key principles of risk-informed 

decision-making set forth in RG 1.174. 

The five key principles are: (1) the 

proposed change meets the current 

regulations unless it is explicitly related 

to a requested exemption; (2) the 

proposed change is consistent with the 

defense-in-depth (DID) philosophy; (3) 

the proposed change maintains 

sufficient safety margins; (4) when 

proposed changes result in an increase 

in risk, the increases should be small 

and consistent with the intent of the 

Commission’s policy statement on 

safety goals for the operations of nuclear 

power plants (51 FR 30028); and (5) the 

impact of the proposed change should 

be monitored using performance 

measurement strategies. 

The NRC staff finds that the proposed 

risk-informed approach meets the five 

key principles in RG 1.174. The 

proposed risk-informed approach is 

consistent with the DID philosophy, 

maintains sufficient safety margins, and 

is monitored using performance 

measurement strategies. The proposed 

risk-informed approach also explicitly 

relates to a requested exemption. 

Finally, the Point Beach risk evaluation 

results show that the risk associated 

with post-accident debris effects is 

within the RG 1.174 Region Ill 

acceptance guidelines as a ‘‘very small 

change’’ and, therefore, is consistent 

with the intent of the Commission’s 

policy statement on safety goals for the 

operations of nuclear power plants. 

A. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law 

The exemption would allow the use 

of a risk-informed methodology to show 

compliance with 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1), 

when considering debris in containment 

generated and transported by those 

breaks that exceed the plant-specific 

tested/analyzed debris limits. As stated 

above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to 

grant exemptions from the requirements 

of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 

50.46(a)(1), when the exemptions are 

authorized by law. The NRC staff has 

determined, as explained below, that 

granting the exemption will not result in 

a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, or the Commission’s 

regulations. Therefore, the exemption is 

authorized by law. 

B. The Exemption Presents No Undue 

Risk to Public Health and Safety 

The provisions of 10 CFR 50.46 

establish criteria for the ECCS 

performance. The licensee submitted a 

request for an exemption under 10 CFR 

50.12 for Point Beach from certain 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) as it 

relates to using a specific deterministic 

methodology to evaluate the effects of 

debris generated from breaks on longterm core cooling. The licensee justified 

its requested exemption by stating that 

it is consistent with the purpose of the 

requirements in that the use of the 

proposed risk-informed approach would 

account for the effects of debris on the 

ECCS cooling performance and would 

support a high probability of successful 

ECCS performance, based on the risk 

results meeting the acceptance 

guidelines of RG 1.174. Additionally, 

the licensee stated that the Point Beach 

risk quantification showed that the 

DCDF and DLERF are below the 

threshold for RG 1.174 Region Ill ‘‘very 

small changes.’’ The licensee stated that 

the proposed risk-informed approach 

would provide an equivalent level of 

assurance for sump performance as 10 

CFR 50.46 without incurring significant 

cost and occupational dose associated 

with removing, replacing, or reinforcing 

insulation in containment. 

The NRC staff finds that the risk 

associated with the requested 

exemption is consistent with the 

guidance in RG 1.174 for the use of 

probabilistic risk assessment and with 

the Commission’s policy statement on 

safety goals for the operations of nuclear 

power plants; therefore, the requested 

exemption presents no undue risk to the 

public health and safety. 

C. The Exemption Is Consistent With the 

Common Defense and Security 

The requested exemption would 

allow the licensee to use a risk-informed 

methodology to resolve a generic safety 

concern for PWRs associated with 

potential clogging of the ECCS and CSS 

strainers during certain design-basis 

events. The change is adequately 

controlled by safety acceptance criteria 

and technical specification 

requirements and is not related to 

security issues. Because the common 

defense and security is not impacted by 

the exemption, the exemption is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. 

D. Special Circumstances 

The requested exemption from 10 

CFR 50.46(a)(1) would allow the 

licensee to use a risk-informed 

methodology in lieu of a deterministic 

methodology to show conformance with 

the ECCS and CSS performance criteria 

accounting for debris in containment for 

LOCAs. In its request, the licensee cited 

the special circumstances criteria of 10 

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) and stated 

that application of the regulation in the 

particular circumstances would not 

serve the underlying purpose of the rule 

or is not necessary to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the rule and that 

compliance would result in undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated. 

The licensee stated that the intent of 

10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) is to ensure that 

ECCS cooling performance design 

requirements imposed by 10 CFR 50.46 

are determined by a rigorous method 

that provides a high level of confidence 

in ECCS performance. The licensee 

stated that its proposed risk-informed 

approach accounts for the effects of 

debris on the ECCS cooling performance 

and supports a high probability of 

successful ECCS performance based on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61623 

the risk results meeting the acceptance 

guidelines of RG 1.174. 

The licensee also stated that in order 

to meet a deterministic threshold value 

for sump debris loads, the debris 

sources in containment would need to 

be significantly reduced. The licensee 

stated that the amount of radiological 

exposure received during the removal 

and/or modification of insulation from 

the Point Beach containments is 

dependent on the scope of the changes. 

The licensee estimated generically that 

the expected total dose for replacing 

calcium silicate and asbestos calcium 

silicate insulation in the Point Beach 

containment would be approximately 

900 roentgen equivalent man (rem) for 

both units (total two-unit dose). An 

additional dose of 200 rem was 

estimated for replacing the mineral wool 

insulation on the resistance temperature 

detector lines. 

Based on the above, the licensee 

concluded that the special 

circumstances described in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) are present with 

respect to its requested exemption. 

The NRC staff summarized its 

evaluation of the proposed riskinformed approach related to the 

exemption request in a safety evaluation 

(ML23208A095). Since 10 CFR 

50.46(a)(1) requires a deterministic 

approach, an exemption is an 

appropriate means to grant the licensee 

relief to use an alternative, riskinformed approach. The underlying 

purpose of the regulation is to protect 

the public health and safety in the event 

of a LOCA by establishing criteria for 

the ECCS. In its safety evaluation, the 

NRC staff concluded, in part, that the 

licensee adequately demonstrated that 

the change in risk attributable to debris 

in postulated LOCAs is very small. The 

NRC staff also concluded that the 

licensee’s proposal for demonstrating 

compliance with the ECCS and the CSS 

performance requirements meets the 

risk acceptance guidelines in RG 1.174, 

because the approach is related to a 

permissible exemption request, is 

consistent with DID philosophy, 

maintains sufficient safety margins, 

results in an increase in risk that is 

small and consistent with the intent of 

the Commission’s policy statement on 

safety goals for the operations of nuclear 

power plants, and is monitored by the 

licensee using performance 

measurement strategies. Therefore, the 

NRC staff finds that the licensee’s use of 

the proposed risk-informed approach to 

consider the impacts of debris meets the 

underlying intent of 10 CFR 50.46 to 

ensure that a licensee demonstrates that 

the ECCS and the CSS will provide 

adequate cooling for the reactor core 

and containment following postulated 

design-basis accidents. 

The NRC staff also finds that the 

licensee demonstrated that using the 

required deterministic approach as 

opposed to the proposed risk-informed 

approach would result in undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated. 

Based on the above, the special 

circumstances described in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) are present for 

the requested exemption. 

E. Environmental Considerations 

The NRC staff determined that the 

exemption discussed herein meets the 

eligibility criteria for categorical 

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) 

because it is related to a requirement 

concerning the installation or use of 

facility components located within the 

restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 

part 20, and the granting of the 

exemption involves: (i) no significant 

hazards consideration, (ii) no significant 

change in the types or significant 

increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite, and (iii) no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation 

exposure. Therefore, in accordance with 

10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need to be prepared in 

connection with the issuance of the 

exemption. The basis for this NRC staff 

determination is discussed as follows 

with an evaluation against each of the 

requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 

Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i) 

The NRC staff evaluated the issue of 

no significant hazards consideration, 

using the standards described in 10 CFR 

50.92(c), as presented below: 

1. Does the requested exemption 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change that would be 

implemented as a result of the 

exemption is a methodology change for 

assessment of debris effects that adds 

the results of a risk-informed evaluation 

to the Point Beach licensing basis. This 

is a viable approach for the resolution 

of GL 2004–02 per SECY–12–0093, 

‘‘Closure Options for Generic Safety 

Issue—191, Assessment of Debris 

Accumulation on Pressurized-Water 

Reactor Sump Performance,’’ dated June 

9, 2012 (ML121310648). The analysis 

that supports the methodology change 

concludes that the functionality of the 

ECCS and CSS during design-basis 

accidents is confirmed by the very small 

risk increase due to strainer failures 

associated with the debris effects, 

supported by the fact that the safety 

margin and DID are maintained with 

high probability. The proposed change 

addresses mitigation of LOCAs and has 

no effect on the probability of the 

occurrence of a LOCA. The proposed 

change does not implement any changes 

in the facility or plant operation that 

could lead to a different kind of 

accident. The containment sump is not 

an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The containment sump is a 

passive component, and the proposed 

change does not increase the likelihood 

of a malfunction of the sump. The 

design and the capability of the 

containment sump assumed in the 

accident analysis are not changed. As a 

result, the probability of an accident is 

unaffected by the proposed change. 

The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed change 

confirms that required structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) 

supported by the containment sumps 

will perform their safety functions with 

a high probability, as required, and does 

not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs 

to perform their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated within 

the acceptance limits. The proposed 

change has no impact on existing 

barriers that prevent the release of 

radioactivity. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria in the Point Beach 

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 

continue to be met for the proposed 

change. 

Therefore, the requested exemption 

does not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the requested exemption 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change that would be 

implemented as a result of the 

exemption is a methodology change for 

assessment of debris effects that adds 

the results of a risk-informed evaluation 

to the Point Beach licensing basis. The 

proposed change does not install or 

remove any plant equipment, or alter 

the design, physical configuration, or 

mode of operation of any plant SSCs. 

The proposed change does not 

introduce any new failure mechanisms 

or malfunctions that can initiate an 

accident. No new credible accident is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
61624 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 

created that is not encompassed by the 

existing accident analyses that assume 

the functioning of the containment 

sump. 

Therefore, the requested exemption 

does not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the requested exemption 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change that would be 

implemented as a result of the 

exemption is a methodology change for 

assessment of debris effects that adds 

the results of a risk-informed evaluation 

to the Point Beach licensing basis. The 

effects from a full spectrum of LOCAs 

and secondary side breaks inside 

containment, including double-ended 

guillotine breaks, are analyzed. 

Appropriate redundancy and 

consideration of loss of offsite power 

and worst-case single failure are 

retained, such that DID is maintained. 

Application of the risk-informed 

methodology showed that the increase 

in risk from the contribution of debris 

effects is very small as defined by RG 

1.174 and that there is adequate DID and 

safety margin, which are extensively 

evaluated in Enclosure 5 of the July 29, 

2022, submittal and which evaluation is 

found to be acceptable in the related 

NRC staff safety evaluation. This 

evaluation showed that there is 

substantial DID and safety margin that 

provide a high level of confidence that 

the calculated risk for the effects of 

debris is conservative and that the 

actual risk is likely much lower. 

Consequently, the licensee determined 

that the risk-informed method 

demonstrates that the containment 

sumps will continue to support the 

ability of safety-related components to 

perform their design functions when the 

effects of debris are considered. This 

risk-informed approach was identified 

as viable for the response to GL 2004– 

02 per SECY–12–0093. The proposed 

change does not alter the manner in 

which safety limits are determined or 

the acceptance criteria associated with a 

safety limit. The proposed change does 

not implement any changes to plant 

operation and does not affect SSCs that 

respond to safely shut down the plant 

and to maintain the plant in a safe 

shutdown condition. The proposed 

change does not significantly affect the 

existing safety margins in the barriers to 

the release of radioactivity. There are no 

changes to any of the safety analyses in 

the FSAR. 

Therefore, the requested exemption 

does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin of safety. 

Based on the above, the NRC staff 

concludes that the requested exemption 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration and, therefore, satisfies 10 

CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)). 

Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(ii) 

No physical modifications or changes 

to operating requirements are proposed 

for the facility as part of the requested 

exemption, including changes to any 

SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 

consequences of a LOCA. No changes 

are made to the safety analyses in the 

FSAR. Approval of the exemption will 

require the calculated risk associated 

with post-accident debris effects to meet 

the Region III acceptance guidelines in 

RG 1.174, thereby maintaining the 

public health and safety. As such, the 

NRC staff concludes that the requested 

exemption does not involve significant 

change in the types or significant 

increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite. Therefore, 

the requested exemption satisfies 10 

CFR 51.22(c)(9)(ii). 

Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(iii) 

No new operator actions are 

implemented that could affect 

occupational radiation exposure. No 

physical modifications or changes to 

operating requirements are proposed for 

the facility as part of the requested 

exemption, including changes to any 

SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 

consequences of a LOCA. No changes 

are made to the safety analyses in the 

FSAR. As such, the NRC staff concludes 

that the requested exemption does not 

involve significant increase in 

individual or cumulative occupational 

radiation exposure. Therefore, the 

requested exemption satisfies 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(9)(iii). 

Conclusion 

Based on the above, the NRC staff 

concludes that the requested exemption 

meets the eligibility criteria for the 

categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(9). Therefore, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared in 

connection with the issuance of the 

exemption. 

IV. Conclusions 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12, the exemption is authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, and is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants NextEra’s 

request for an exemption from 10 CFR 

50.46(a)(1) to allow the use of a riskinformed methodology in lieu of a 

deterministic methodology to show 

conformance with the ECCS and CSS 

performance criteria accounting for 

debris in containment for those breaks 

that exceed the Point Beach-specific 

tested/analyzed debris limits. 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

V. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are related to the 

requested exemption and available to 

interested persons through the NRC’s 

ADAMS at https://adams.nrc.gov/wba/. 

Document 

ADAMS 

Accession 

No. 

NextEra letter, ‘‘Exemption Request, License Amendment Request and Revised Response in Support of a Risk-informed Resolution of Generic Letter 2004–02’’ (L–2022–121), dated July 29, 2022.ML22210A086. 

NextEra letter, ‘‘Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Exemption Request, License 

Amendment Request and Revised Response in Support of a Risk-Informed Resolution of Generic Letter 2004– 

02’’ (L–2023–075), dated June 9, 2023.

ML23163A022. 

NRC Generic Letter 2004–02, ‘‘Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design 

Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors,’’ dated September 13, 2004.

ML042360586. 

Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, ‘‘An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,’’ dated January 2018.ML17317A256. 

NRC letter, ‘‘Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2—Issuance of Amendment Nos. 273 and 275 Regarding 

Revising Licensing Basis to Address Generic Safety Issue 191 and to Respond to Generic Letter 2004–02 

Using a Risk-Informed Approach,’’ dated August 28, 2023.

ML23208A095. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Notices 61625 

Document 

ADAMS 

Accession 

No. 

NextEra letter, ‘‘Response to Generic Letter 2004–02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors’’ (NRC 2007–0085), dated November 

16, 2007.

ML073230345. 

NextEra letter, ‘‘Updated Final Response to NRC Generic Letter 2004–02’’ (NRC 2017–0045), December 29, 

2017.

ML17363A253. 

Dated: August 28, 2023. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Victor G. Cusumano, 

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19297 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2023–0072] 

Information Collection: Grants and 

Cooperative Agreement Provisions 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Renewal of existing information 

collection; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) invites public 

comment on the renewal of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for an existing collection of 

information. The information collection 

is entitled, ‘‘Grants and Cooperative 

Agreement Provisions.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

6, 2023. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the Commission is able to 

ensure consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0072. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: David C. 

Cullison, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, Mail Stop: T–6 A10M, 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: 

David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2023– 

0072 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 Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0072. A copy 

of the collection of information and 

related instructions may be obtained 

without charge by accessing Docket ID 

NRC–2023–0072 on this website. 

• 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 

‘‘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, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting the NRC’s 

Clearance Officer, David C. Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2023–0072, in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your 

comment submission. All comment 

submissions are posted at https://

www.regulations.gov and entered into 

ADAMS. Comment submissions are not 

routinely edited 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 comment 

submissions are not routinely edited to 

remove such information before making 

the comment submissions available to 

the public or entering the comment into 

ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the NRC is requesting 

public comment on its intention to 

request the OMB’s approval for the 

information collection summarized 

below. 

1. The title of the information 

collection: Grants and Cooperative 

Agreement Provisions. 

2. OMB approval number: 3150–0107. 

3. Type of submission: Revision. 

4. The form number, if applicable: 

NRC Forms 972 and 975. 

5. How often the collection is required 

or requested: Technical Performance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1