[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61621-61625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19297]



[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#52012633312b7c01313a273f333c3c123c20317c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1f2d5c0c2d88ff2c2c9d4ccc0cfcfe1cfd3c28fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the ``For Further 
Information Contact'' section of this document.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#346470661a6651475b41465751745a46571a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8a8bcaad6aa9d8b978d8a9b9db8968a9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
    <bullet> 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9899d8bf78bbcaab6acabbabc99b7abbaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0a0b4a2dea295839f85829395b09e8293de979f86">[email protected]</span></a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#287b4b475c5c067f49444468465a4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d1e2e223939631a2c21210d233f2e632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

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-of-coolant 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.''

[[Page 61622]]

    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 risk-informed 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 ([Delta]CDF) and the 
change in large early release frequency ([Delta]LERF) remain within the 
acceptance guidelines identified as Region III of Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-
Informed 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 long-term 
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 [Delta]CDF and [Delta]LERF 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

[[Page 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 risk-
informed 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, risk-informed 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

[[Page 61624]]

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 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 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      ML22210A086.
 Amendment Request and Revised Response in
 Support of a Risk-informed Resolution of
 Generic Letter 2004-02'' (L-2022-121), dated
 July 29, 2022.
NextEra letter, ``Response to Request for         ML23163A022.
 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.
NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, ``Potential Impact    ML042360586.
 of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation
 During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-
 Water Reactors,'' dated September 13, 2004.
Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, ``An          ML17317A256.
 Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk
 Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-
 Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,''
 dated January 2018.
NRC letter, ``Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1  ML23208A095.
 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.

[[Page 61625]]

 
NextEra letter, ``Response to Generic Letter      ML073230345.
 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.
NextEra letter, ``Updated Final Response to NRC   ML17363A253.
 Generic Letter 2004-02'' (NRC 2017-0045),
 December 29, 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>