[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17226-17233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8455]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0160]


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) staff is publishing this notice. The Act requires 
the Commission 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 upon a 
determination by the Commission that

[[Page 17227]]

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 sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards 
information (SGI).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. 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.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch, TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    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 subject amendment to the facility operating license. 
Such request(s) and petition(s) should be filed via electronic 
submission through the NRC E-Filing system. Request(s) for a hearing 
and petition(s) for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance 
with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's 
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 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 petitioner/requestor 
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 
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor 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

[[Page 17228]]

determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    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 E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures 
described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least) 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5bdb0b4a7bcbbb2fbb1bab6beb0a195bba7b6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c1ccc8dbc0c7ce87cdc6cac2ccdde9c7dbca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital 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/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer<SUP>TM</SUP> 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer<SUP>TM</SUP> is free and is 
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC 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 may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing 
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. The electronic 
filing Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3aeb0aba7cdb186908c96918086a38d9180cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d8c6ddd1bbc7f0e6fae0e7f6f0d5fbe7f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 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.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/
or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a 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. 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.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://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 Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c0c180e520e190f13090e1f193c120e1f521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="215145530f5344524e54534244614f53420f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of Amendment Request: September 17, 2008, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 26, 2009. The revised proposed no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC) included in the February 26, 2009, letter 
replaces the NSHC in the letter dated September 17, 2008, in its 
entirety.
    Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS) 
5.6, ``Fuel Storage,'' is being revised to take credit for soluble 
boron in Region 1 (cask storage pit) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and 
refueling canal) fuel storage racks for the storage of both Standard 
and Next Generation

[[Page 17229]]

Fuel (NGF) assemblies. Two new TS Limiting Conditions for Operation and 
associated Surveillance Requirements, 3/4 9.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) 
Boron Concentration,'' and 3/4 9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool,'' have been 
added to ensure the required boron concentration is maintained in the 
spent fuel storage racks and that spent fuel storage racks are within 
the design parameters, respectively. The proposed change is evaluated 
for both normal operation and accident conditions and is intended to 
provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF assemblies in 
the spent fuel storage racks.
    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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the spent fuel storage racks is to maintain fresh 
and irradiated fuel in a safe storage condition. The proposed 
changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage area) and Region 2 
(spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant shutdown, refueling 
canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking credit for soluble 
boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and loading 
restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and increasing the 
k<INF>eff</INF> [effective (neutron) multiplication factor] limit 
for the flooding of the fuel storage racks with unborated water will 
not affect any accident initiator or mitigator. The proposed changes 
will provide more flexibility in storing the more reactive NGF 
assemblies in the spent fuel pool storage racks. The effects of the 
new fuel parameters of NGF assemblies on radiation shielding, 
thermal-hydraulics, seismic/structural, and mechanical drop analyses 
have been separately reviewed and were found to be acceptable.
    The proposed changes will not alter the configuration of the 
storage racks or their environment. The fuel racks will not be 
operated outside of their design limits, and no additional loads 
will be imposed on them. Therefore, these changes will not affect 
fuel storage rack performance or reliability. No new equipment will 
be introduced into the plant. The accuracies and response 
characteristics of existing instrumentation will not be modified. 
The proposed changes will not require, or result in, a change in 
safety system operation, and will not affect any system interface 
with the fuel storage racks. Fuel assembly placement will continue 
to be controlled in accordance with approved fuel handling 
procedures. The proposed changes in the Technical Specifications, 
including surveillance requirements, will not add any significant 
complexities or increase the possibility of operator error.
    The proposed changes will not affect any barrier that mitigates 
dose to the public, and will not result in a new release pathway 
being created. The functions of equipment designed to control the 
release of radioactive material will not be impacted, and no 
mitigating actions described or assumed for an accident in the UFSAR 
[Updated Final Safety Analyses Report] will be altered or prevented. 
No assumptions previously made in evaluating the consequences of an 
accident will need to be modified. Onsite dose will not be 
increased, so the access of plant personnel to vital areas of the 
plant will not be restricted and mitigating actions will not be 
impeded.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
significantly increase either the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage 
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant 
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking 
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and 
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and 
increasing the k<INF>eff</INF> limit for the flooding of the fuel 
storage racks with unborated water will not increase the probability 
of an accident which was previously considered to be incredible nor 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident initiator previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
    The proposed changes do not involve changes to the configuration 
of plant systems, or the manner in which they are operated. 
Crediting soluble boron in the spent fuel pool storage rack 
criticality analysis will have no effect on normal pool operation 
and maintenance since soluble boron in Region 1 and Region 2 is 
currently required by procedure. The crediting of soluble boron will 
only result in increased sampling to verify compliance with the 
minimum boron concentration required by the new TS 3/4.9.12. The 
increased sampling ensures that a new kind of accident, boron 
dilution in the spent fuel pool, will not be created.
    The addition of large amounts of unborated water would be 
necessary to reduce the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool 
from the normal level of <ls-thn-eq>= 1,900 ppm [parts per million] 
specified in new TS 3/4.9.12 to either 838 ppm (needed to 
accommodate the most limiting fuel loading accident) or 447 ppm 
(required for normal conditions). A small dilution flow might result 
from a leak from the cooling system into the spent fuel pool. 
Routine surveillance measurements of the soluble boron concentration 
conducted every 7 days per the new TS 3/4.9.12 would readily detect 
the reduction in concentration and provide sufficient time for 
corrective action prior to exceeding the regulatory limits.
    A high flow rate dilution accident involving continuous 
operation of the Condensate Storage Pool pump could add a large 
amount of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. However, multiple 
alarms would alert the Control Room to the situation, including the 
fuel pool high-level alarm, Fuel Handling Building sump high-level 
alarm, and the Liquid Waste Management Trouble alarm. It is not 
considered credible that either multiple alarms would fail or be 
ignored by Operators, or that the spilling of large volumes of water 
from the spent fuel pool would be observed by plant personnel who 
would not take corrective actions. Moreover, if the soluble boron in 
the spent fuel storage racks would be completely diluted, the fuel 
in the racks will remain subcritical by a design margin of at least 
0.005 [Delta]k, and so the k<INF>eff</INF> of the fuel in the racks 
will remain below 1.00.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for the Region 1 (spent fuel cask storage 
area) and Region 2 (spent fuel pool and, after permanent plant 
shutdown, refueling canal) fuel storage racks, which involve taking 
credit for soluble boron, revising the burnup-enrichment limits and 
loading restrictions for the storage of fuel assemblies, and 
increasing the k<INF>eff</INF> limit for the flooding of the fuel 
storage racks with unborated water, will not result in a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Detailed analysis with approved and benchmarked methods has 
shown, with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, that the 
neutron multiplication factor, k<INF>eff</INF>, of the Region 1 and 
Region 2 high-density spent fuel pool storage racks, loaded with 
either Standard or NGF assemblies, and including biases, tolerances, 
and uncertainties, is less than 1.00 with unborated water, and less 
than 0.95 with 447 ppm of soluble boron credited. In addition, the 
effects of abnormal and accident conditions have been evaluated to 
demonstrate that under credible conditions the k<INF>eff</INF> will 
not exceed 0.95 with soluble boron credited. To ensure that the 
margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained, and that 
k<INF>eff</INF> will be below 0.95, a new TS 3/4.9.12 will require a 
soluble boron level of <ls-thn-eq>= 1,900 ppm in the spent fuel 
pool. This is much greater than the required soluble boron 
concentration of 447 ppm under normal conditions, and 838 ppm for 
all credible accident conditions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.

[[Page 17230]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of Amendment Request: December 8, 2008, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 16 and 27, 2009, and February 20, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 
current licensing basis to implement the alternate source term (AST) 
through reanalysis of the radiological consequences of the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14 accidents. The following technical 
specifications (TS) are requested to be modified:
    TS 1.1 is reduced from 0.4 percent of containment air weight per 
day to 0.2 percent of containment air weight per day at peak design 
containment pressure.
    Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.16.2 is revised to change the 
specific activity of the reactor coolant from dose equivalent (DE) I-
131 less than or equal to 0.8 uCi/gm to less than or equal to 0.5 uCi/
gm.
    SR 3.7.9.3 and SR 3.7.9.6 are revised to delete the word 
``makeup.''
    TS 3.7.13 is revised to change the specific activity of the 
secondary coolant from less than or equal to 1.00 uCi/gm to less than 
or equal to 0.1 uCi/gm DE I-131.
    TS 5.5.15c is revised to change the maximum allowable containment 
leakage rate, from 0.4 percent to 0.2 percent of containment air weight 
per day.
    TS 5.6.4 adds WCAP-16259-P-A ``Westinghouse Methodology for 
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Analyses'' to the 
list of approved analytical methods.
    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 results of the applicable radiological [design basis 
accident] DBA re-evaluation demonstrated that, with the requested 
changes, the dose consequences of these limiting events are within 
the regulatory limits and guidance provided by the NRC in 10 CFR 
50.67 and [Regulatory Guide] RG 1.183 [``Alternative Radiological 
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' July 2000] for the AST methodology. The AST is an input to 
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of an accident and 
does not by itself affect the plant response or the actual pathway 
of the activity released from the fuel. It does, however, better 
represent the physical characteristics of the release, such that 
appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied.
    The change from the original source term to the new proposed AST 
is a change in the analysis method and assumptions and has no effect 
on the probability of occurrence of previously analyzed accidents. 
Use of an AST to analyze the dose effect of DBAs shows that 
regulatory acceptance criteria for the new methodology continues to 
be met. The dose consequences in the [control room] CR, the 
exclusion area boundary, and the low population zone [LPZ] do not 
exceed the regulatory limits provided by the NRC in 10 CFR 50.67 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.183 for the AST methodology.
    For the locked rotor [LR] event, an NRC approved methodology 
RAVE (Westinghouse WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for 
Application of 3-D Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident 
Analysis,'') is used to determine rods in [departure from nucleate 
boiling] DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology provides an 
input assumption to the radiological dose consequences calculations. 
The use of the new methodology does not change the sequence or 
progression of the accident scenario.
    The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration that is 
required to implement the AST analyses. The equipment affected by 
the proposed changes is mitigating in nature and relied upon after 
an accident has been initiated. The operation of various filtration 
systems, the [residual heat removal] RHR and the [containment spray] 
CS systems, including associated support systems, has been 
considered in the evaluations of these proposed changes. The 
operation of this equipment has been evaluated for emergency diesel 
generator loading and fuel consumption. The evaluation demonstrated 
that the diesel generator loading and fuel consumption do not exceed 
the diesel generator criteria. While the operation of these systems 
does change with the implementation of an AST, the affected systems 
are not accident initiators, and application of the AST methodology 
itself is not an initiator of a DBA.
    The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has 
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow 
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in 
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the 
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase 
of a DBA.
    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 changes proposed in this [license amendment request] LAR 
involve the use of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory 
acceptance criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant 
configuration that is required to implement the AST analyses. No new 
or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. 
Although the proposed changes require modifications to the [control 
room ventilation system] VNCR system, as well as modifications to 
the RHR system and CS system, these changes will not create a new or 
different kind of accident since they are related to system 
capabilities that provide protection from accidents that have 
already occurred. The operation of this equipment has been evaluated 
for emergency diesel generator loading and fuel consumption. The 
evaluation demonstrated that the diesel generator loading and fuel 
consumption do not exceed the diesel generator criteria.
    The operation of containment spray on sump recirculation has 
been evaluated for increased strainer blockage or reduction in flow 
from the sump. The evaluation demonstrated that the increase in 
containment spray will not adversely affect the operation of the 
emergency core cooling systems during the sump recirculation phase 
of a DBA.
    As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced that 
could lead to different accidents. These changes do not alter the 
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any 
unique precursor mechanisms.
    For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse 
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D 
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to 
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology 
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences 
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not alter the 
nature of events postulated in the FSAR nor do they introduce any 
unique precursor mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The changes proposed in this license amendment involve the use 
of a new analysis methodology and related regulatory acceptance 
criteria. The proposed TS changes reflect the plant configuration 
that is required to implement the AST analyses. Safety margins and 
analytical conservatisms have been evaluated and have been found to 
be acceptable. The analyzed events have been carefully selected and, 
with plant modifications, no significant reduction of margin has 
occurred and analyses adequately bound postulated event scenarios. 
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the dose consequences 
of DBAs at the exclusion

[[Page 17231]]

area and LPZ boundaries and in the CR are within the corresponding 
acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The 
margin of safety for the radiological consequences of these 
accidents is provided by meeting the applicable regulatory limits, 
which are set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable 
margin of safety is inherent in these limits.
    For the LR event, an NRC approved methodology RAVE (Westinghouse 
WCAP-16259-P-A, ``Westinghouse Methodology for Application of 3-D 
Transient Neutronics to Non-LOCA Accident Analysis,'') is used to 
determine rods in DNB. The use of an NRC approved methodology 
provides an input assumption to the radiological dose consequences 
calculations. The use of the new methodology does not reduce any 
margins of safety for the LR event; 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: Antonio Fernandez, Senior Attorney, FPL 
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) for 
Contention Preparation

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, 
Wisconsin

    1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents 
containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI).
    2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of 
opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 
who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the 
notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A ``potential party'' is any 
person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by 
demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 
10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be 
considered, absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI and/or SGI 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, MD 20852. The 
e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the 
General Counsel are <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b9b4b0a3b8bfb6ffb5beb2bab4a591bfa3b2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9d1dcd8cbd0d7de97ddd6dad2dccdf9d7cbda97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#711e16121c10181d12141f0514035f0314021e04031214311f03125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741b131719151d1817111a0011065a0611071b01061711341a06175a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>, respectively.\1\ The request must 
include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See footnote 6. 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 and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted 
as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;
    b. 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 (a);
    c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information 
in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, 
particularly why publicly available versions of the application would 
not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered 
contention;
    d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual 
requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or 
assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and 
information that shows:
    (i) Why the information is indispensable to meaningful 
participation in this licensing proceeding; and
    (ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, 
experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and 
use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and 
specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a 
potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified 
expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence 
as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a 
non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective 
order; and
    e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions,'' Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), and a credit 
check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI 
and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI. 
For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically, 
through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the 
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration 
at 301-492-3524.\2\ The other completed forms must be signed in 
original ink, accompanied by a check or money order payable in the 
amount of $191.00 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each 
individual, and mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security 
Processing Unit, Mail Stop TWB-05 B32M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name, 
Social Security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, 
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester 
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which 
includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check. 
Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the request 
letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter should 
state that the forms and fees have been submitted as described above.
    4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all 
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including 
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will 
be returned to the sender and will not be processed.
    5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 
2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten 
days of receipt of the written access 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) there is a 
legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested. 
For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the 
information requested is necessary (i.e., indispensable) for the 
proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in 
this NRC

[[Page 17232]]

proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the technical 
competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, education, or 
experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI requested in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly 
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff 
redaction of information from requested documents before their 
release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These 
procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny 
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in 
connection with an already-admitted contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will 
further determine based upon completion of the background check whether 
the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will 
conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's 
information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from 
inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at 
the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection 
program to meet SGI protection requirements.
    7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if:
    a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to 
intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;
    b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a 
need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed 
recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable;
    c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms 
of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and
    d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning 
the information or documents requested.\4\ Any protective order issued 
shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 25 
days after receipt of (or access to) that information. 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 or SGI contentions by that later 
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the 
Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a 
presiding officer to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms 
and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be 
set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure 
appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties 
to this proceeding,\5\ and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts 
by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement 
on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-
disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the 
petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within ten (10) days, 
describing the obstacles to the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff 
will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access 
determination (and may participate in the development of such a 
motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/
person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by 
the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or 
a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a 
determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a 
determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall 
briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of 
Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the 
proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or 
explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's 
adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect 
to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within ten 
(10) 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 Sec.  2.318(a); or (c) if another 
officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with 
that officer. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an 
adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a 
challenge within fifteen (15) days of receipt of that determination.
    In the same manner, 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 within ten (10) days of the notification by the 
NRC staff of its grant of such a request.
    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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final ``E-Filing Rule'' 
became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency 
Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that 
the filing requirements of that rule 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/SGI 
requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. 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/or SGI, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI) in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Day                             Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................  Publication of Federal Register
                                        notice of proposed action and
                                        opportunity for hearing,
                                        including order with
                                        instructions for access
                                        requests.

[[Page 17233]]

 
10...................................  Deadline for submitting requests
                                        for access to SUNSI and/or SGI
                                        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; demonstrating that
                                        access should be granted (e.g.,
                                        showing technical competence for
                                        access to SGI); and, for SGI,
                                        including application fee for
                                        fingerprint/background check.
60...................................  Deadline for submitting petition
                                        for intervention containing: (i)
                                        Demonstration of standing; (ii)
                                        all contentions whose
                                        formulation does not require
                                        access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25
                                        Answers to petition for
                                        intervention; +7 petitioner/
                                        requestor reply).
20...................................  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 (1) need
                                        for SUNSI or (2) need to know
                                        for SGI. (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). If NRC
                                        staff makes the finding of need
                                        to know for SGI and likelihood
                                        of standing, NRC staff begins
                                        background check (including
                                        fingerprinting for a criminal
                                        history records check),
                                        information processing
                                        (preparation of redactions or
                                        review of redacted documents),
                                        and readiness inspections.
25...................................  If NRC staff finds no ``need,''
                                        ``need to know,'' or likelihood
                                        of standing, the deadline for
                                        petitioner/requester to file a
                                        motion seeking a ruling to
                                        reverse the NRC staff's denial
                                        of access; NRC staff files copy
                                        of access determination with the
                                        presiding officer (or Chief
                                        Administrative Judge or other
                                        designated officer, as
                                        appropriate). If NRC staff finds
                                        ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
                                        for any party to the proceeding
                                        whose interest independent of
                                        the proceeding would be harmed
                                        by the release of the
                                        information to file a motion
                                        seeking a ruling to reverse the
                                        NRC staff's grant of access.
30...................................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to
                                        motions to reverse NRC staff
                                        determination(s).
40...................................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds
                                        standing and need for SUNSI,
                                        deadline for NRC staff to
                                        complete information processing
                                        and file motion for Protective
                                        Order and draft Non-Disclosure
                                        Affidavit. Deadline for
                                        applicant/licensee to file Non-
                                        Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
190..................................  (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds
                                        standing, need to know for SGI,
                                        and trustworthiness and
                                        reliability, deadline for NRC
                                        staff to file motion for
                                        Protective Order and draft Non-
                                        disclosure Affidavit (or to make
                                        a determination that the
                                        proposed recipient of SGI is not
                                        trustworthy or reliable). Note:
                                        Before the Office of
                                        Administration makes an adverse
                                        determination regarding access,
                                        the proposed recipient must be
                                        provided an opportunity to
                                        correct or explain information.
205..................................  Deadline for petitioner to seek
                                        reversal of a final adverse NRC
                                        staff determination either
                                        before the presiding officer or
                                        another designated officer.
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 and/or SGI
                                        consistent with decision issuing
                                        the protective order.
A + 28...............................  Deadline for submission of
                                        contentions whose development
                                        depends upon access to SUNSI and/
                                        or SGI. 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 or SGI
                                        contentions by that later
                                        deadline.
A + 53...............................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers
                                        to contentions whose development
                                        depends upon access to SUNSI and/
                                        or SGI.
A + 60...............................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/
                                        Intervenor reply to answers.
B....................................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-8455 Filed 4-13-09; 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>