Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45479 

• Presentation by Norman Augustine 

Committee on Strategy and Budget 

(CSB) 

Open Session: 1:45 p.m.–2:45 p.m. 

• Approval of CSB Minutes, May 6, 

2008 

• Committee Chairman’s Remarks 

• CSB Task Force on Cost Sharing 

(CS) 

Æ Approval of CS Minutes, May 6, 

2008 

ÆTask Force Chairman’s Remarks 

Æ Discussion of July 9 & 10, 2008 

Roundtable Discussions on Cost 

Sharing 

Æ Update on Other Information—

Gathering Activities 

Æ Discussion of Draft CS Report 

Outline 

• Draft Board Report ‘‘Report to 

Congress on Limits on Proposal 

Submissions by Institution’’

Committee on Strategy and Budget 

(CSB) 

Closed Session: 2:45 p.m.–3 p.m. 

• NSF Budget Development 

Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) 

Closed Session: 3 p.m.–5:45 p.m. 

• NSB Information Item: High 

Performance Computing (HPC) 

Awards 

• NSB Action Item: Protein Data Bank 

Management 

• NSB Action Item: General Social 

Survey 

• Overview of Science of Learning 

Centers Actions 

• NSB Action Item: Science of 

Learning Center Proposal #1 

• NSB Action Item: Science of 

Learning Center Proposal #2 

• NSB Action Item: Science of 

Learning Center Proposal #3 

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 

Committee on Education and Human 

Resources (EHR) 

Open Session: 8 a.m.–10:30 a.m. 

• Approval of May 7, 2008 Minutes 

• Committee Chairman’s Remarks 

• Subcommittee on Science and 

Engineering Indicators (SEI) 

Æ Approval of May 6, 2008 SEI 

Minutes 

Æ SEI Chairman’s Remarks 

Æ Presentation of Director’s Award for 

Collaborative Integration 

Æ Overview of the process for 

producing Science and Engineering 

Indicators 2010 and the 

Subcommittee’s role 

Æ Key Board dates and activities for 

production of Science and 

Engineering Indicators 2010 

Æ Introduction of chapter authors and 

discussion of Science and 

Engineering Indicators 2010 

narrative chapter outlines 

Æ SEI Chairman’s summary 

• Discussion: Preparing the Next 

Generation of STEM Innovators 

Task Force on the NSB 60th 

Anniversary 

Open Session: 10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. 

• Task Force Chairman’s Remarks 

• Discussion on 60th Anniversary 

Commemoration 

Executive Committee 

Open Session: 10:45 a.m.–11 a.m. 

• Approval of Minutes for the May 

2008 Meeting 

• Executive Committee Chairman’s 

Remarks 

• Updates or New Business from 

Committee Members 

Committee on Audit and Oversight 

(A&O) 

Open Session: 11 a.m.–12 p.m. 

• Approval of Minutes of the May 7, 

2008 Meeting 

• Committee Chairman’s Opening 

Remarks 

• Report by NSF Advisory Committee 

on GPRA Performance Assessment 

(Dr. David Spencer) 

• Findings from Labor Effort Audit 

Reports 

• Enhancing the Accountability of 

International Collaborative 

Research Projects 

Closed Session: 12 p.m.–12:30 p.m. 

• Pending Investigations 

Plenary Executive Closed 

Closed Session: 1:30 p.m.–2 p.m. 

• Approval of May 2008 Minutes 

• Election for Executive Committee 

Plenary Closed 

Closed Session: 2 p.m.–2:30 p.m. 

• Approval of May 2008 Minutes 

• Awards and Agreements 

• Closed Committee Reports 

Plenary Open 

Open Session: 2:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m. 

• Approval of May 2008 Minutes 

• Resolution to Close September 2008 

Meeting 

• Chairman’s Report 

• Director’s Report 

• Open Committee Reports 

Ann Ferrante, 

Writer/Editor. 

[FR Doc. E8–18024 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Notice; Applications and Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses 

Involving Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Considerations and 

Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards 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 

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 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45480 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

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, 

Directives and Editing Branch, 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. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D44, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1F21, 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 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

may file a request for a hearing and a 

petition to intervene with respect to 

issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. Such 

requests for a hearing and petitions to 

intervene must be written requests filed 

via electronic submission through the 

NRC E-Filing system. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition 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/doccollections/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, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

A request for hearing or a petition for 

leave to intervene 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 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 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov, 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45481 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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/applycertificates.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 

technical help line, which is available 

between 8 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. The help 

line number is (800) 397–4209 or 

locally, (301) 415–4737. 

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 firstclass 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, the presiding officer, or 

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). To be timely, 

filings must be submitted no later than 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due 

date. 

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. 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.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 email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–266 , Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 

Unit 1, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. 

Date of amendment request: May 28, 

2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendment 

proposes a one cycle revision to the 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Unit 

1 technical specifications (TS). 

Specifically, TS 5.5.8, ‘‘Steam Generator 

(SG) Program,’’ and TS 5.6.8, ‘‘Steam 

Generator Tube Inspection Report,’’ will 

be revised to incorporate an interim 

alternate repair criterion into the 

provisions for SG tube repair for use 

during the Unit 1 2008 fall refueling 

outage and the subsequent operating 

cycle. 

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. 

Of the various accidents previously 

evaluated, the proposed changes only affect 

steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event 

evaluation and the postulated steam line 

break (SLB), locked rotor, and control rod 

ejection accident evaluations. 

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 

conditions cause a compressive axial load to 

act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA 

tends to force the tube into the tubesheet 

rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in 

this amendment request. Another faulted 

load consideration is a safe shutdown 

earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic 

analysis of Model F steam generators has 

shown that axial loading of the tubes is 

negligible during an SSE. 

At normal operating pressures, leakage 

from [primary water stress cracking 

corrosion] PWSCC below 17 inches from the 

[top of the tubesheet] TTS is limited by both 

the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited 

crack opening permitted by the tubesheet 

constraint. Consequently, negligible normal 

operating leakage is expected from cracks 

within the tubesheet region. 

For the SGTR event, the required structural 

margins of the steam generator tubes is 

maintained by limiting the allowable 

ligament size for a circumferential crack to 

remain in service to 203 degrees below 17 

inches from the TTS for the subsequent 

operating cycle. Tube rupture is precluded 

for cracks in the hydraulic expansion region 

due to the constraint provided by the 

tubesheet. The potential for tube pullout is 

mitigated by limiting the allowable crack size 

to 203 degrees subsequent operating cycle. 

These allowable crack sizes take into account 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

1See 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. 

eddy current uncertainty and crack growth 

rate. It has been shown that a circumferential 

crack with an azimuthal extent of 203 

degrees for the 18-month SG tubing eddy 

current inspection interval meets the 

performance criteria of NEI 97–06, Rev. 2, 

‘‘Steam Generator Program Guidelines’’ and 

Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases for 

Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized water 

reactors] Steam Generator Tubes.’’ Therefore, 

the margin against tube burst pullout is 

maintained during normal and postulated 

accident conditions and the proposed change 

does not result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequence of a SGTR. 

The probability of a SLB is unaffected by 

the potential failure of a SG tube as the 

failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB 

event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow 

restrictions resulting from the leakage path 

above potential cracks through the tube-totubesheet crevice. The leak rate during 

postulated accident conditions (including 

locked rotor) has been shown to remain 

within the accident analysis assumptions for 

all axial or circumferentially oriented cracks 

occurring 17 inches below the top of the 

tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is 

limited to 150 [gallons per day] gpd 

(approximately 0.10 [gallons per minute] 

gpm), the attendant accident condition leak 

rate, assuming all leakage to be from 

indications below 17 inches from the top of 

the tubesheet would be bounded by 500 gpd 

(approximately 0.35 gpm). This value is 

within the accident analysis assumptions for 

the design basis accident for PBNP. 

Based on the above, the performance 

criteria of NEI–97–06, Rev. 2 and Draft 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be 

met and the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any changes or mechanisms that create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected 

to be maintained for all plant conditions 

upon implementation of the interim alternate 

repair criteria. The proposed change does not 

introduce any new equipment or any change 

to existing equipment. No new effects on 

existing equipment are created nor are any 

new malfunctions introduced. 

Therefore, based on the above evaluation, 

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 change maintains the 

required structural margins of the steam 

generator tubes for both normal and accident 

conditions. NEI 97–06, Revision 2 and RG 

I.I21 are used as the basis in the development 

of the limited tubesheet inspection depth 

methodology for determining that steam 

generator tube integrity considerations are 

maintained within acceptable limits. RG 

1.121 describes a method acceptable to the 

NRC staff for meeting [general design criteria] 

GDC 14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the 

probability and consequences of an SGTR. 

PBNP GDC 9, 33, 31, 34, and 36 are similar 

to Appendix A GDC 14, 15, 31, and 32. RG 

1. 12 1 concludes that by determining the 

limiting safe conditions of tube wall 

degradation beyond which tubes with 

unacceptable cracking, as established by 

inservice inspection, should be removed 

from service or repaired, the probability and 

consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This 

RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst 

that are consistent with the requirements of 

Section III of the ASME [American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers] Code. 

For axially oriented cracking located 

within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded 

due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 

circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube 

or the tube-to-tubesheet weld, References 2 

and 4 [of the application] define a length of 

remaining tube ligament that provides the 

necessary resistance to tube pullout due to 

the pressure induced forces (with applicable 

safety factors applied). Additionally, it is 

shown that application of the limited 

tubesheet inspection depth criteria will not 

result in unacceptable primary-to-secondary 

leakage during all plant conditions. 

Based on the above, it is concluded that the 

proposed changes do not result in any 

reduction of margin with respect to plant 

safety as defined in the Final Safety Analysis 

Report or Bases of the plant Technical 

Specifications. 

Attorney for licensee: Antonio 

Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney, 

FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 

14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois James. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) and 

Safeguards Information (SGI) for 

Contention Preparation 

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–266, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 

Unit 1, 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 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, 

respectively.1 The request must include 

the following information: 

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 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45483 

2The requester will be asked to provide his or her 

full name, social security number, date and place 

of birth, telephone number, and email address. 

After providing this information, the requester 

usually should be able to obtain access to the online 

form within one business day. 

3Broad 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. 

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. 

5Parties/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). 

who demonstrates technical competence 

as well as trustworthiness and 

reliability, and who agrees to sign a nondisclosure 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 301–415–

0320. 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: 2

Office of Administration, Security 

Processing Unit, Mail Stop T–6E46, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0012. 

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 

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. 

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 NonDisclosure 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. 

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 nondisclosure 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. 

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 10 CFR 

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 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

6As of October 15, 2007, the NRC’s final ‘‘EFiling 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. 

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

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 28th day 

of July, 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (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. 

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. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45485 

[FR Doc. E8–17697 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–454 and 50–455] 

Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing and 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37 and NPF–66 issued to Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) 

for operation of the Byron Station, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2 (Byron), which is located 

in Ogle County, Illinois. 

The proposed amendment in the 

licensee’s application dated June 17, 

2008, would revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9, Steam 

Generator (SG) Program, and TS 5.6.9, 

Steam Generator Tube Inspection 

Report. For TS 5.5.9, the amendment 

would incorporate a one-cycle interim 

alternate repair criteria (IARC) in the 

provisions for SG tube repair criteria 

during Byron, Unit No. 2, refueling 

outage 14 and the subsequent operating 

cycle. The IARC proposal requires fulllength inspection of the SG tubes within 

the tubesheet but does not require 

plugging tubes if circumferential 

cracking observed in the region greater 

than 17 inches from the top of the 

tubesheet is less than a value sufficient 

to permit the remaining circumferential 

ligament to transmit the limiting axial 

loads. For TS 5.6.9, the amendment 

would revise the current reporting 

requirements. The proposed changes 

only affect Byron, Unit No. 2; however, 

they are docketed for both Byron units 

because the TS are common to both 

units. 

This amendment application includes 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI, i.e., proprietary 

information). Before issuance of the 

proposed license amendment, the 

Commission will have made findings 

required by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the CODE OF FEDERAL 

REGULATIONS (10 CFR), Section 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. 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. 

Of the various accidents previously 

evaluated, the proposed changes only affect 

the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), 

postulated steam line break (SLB), locked 

rotor and control rod ejection accident 

evaluations. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 

conditions cause a compressive axial load to 

act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA 

tends to force the tube into the tubesheet 

rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in 

this amendment request. Another faulted 

load consideration is a safe shutdown 

earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic 

analysis of Model D5 steam generators has 

shown that axial loading of the tubes is 

negligible during an SSE. 

At normal operating pressures, leakage 

from primary water stress corrosion cracking 

(PWSCC) below 17 inches from the top of the 

tubesheet is limited by both the tube-totubesheet crevice and the limited crack 

opening permitted by the tubesheet 

constraint. Consequently, negligible normal 

operating leakage is expected from cracks 

within the tubesheet region. 

For the SGTR event, the required structural 

margins of the steam generator tubes is 

maintained by limiting the allowable 

ligament size for a circumferential crack to 

remain in service to 203 degrees below 17 

inches from the top of the tubesheet. Tube 

rupture is precluded for cracks in the 

hydraulic expansion region due to the 

constraint provided by the tubesheet. The 

potential for tube pullout is mitigated by 

limiting the allowable crack size to 203 

degrees, which takes into account eddy 

current uncertainty and crack growth rate. It 

has been shown that a circumferential crack 

with an azimuthal extent of 203 degrees 

meets the performance criteria of NEI 97–06, 

Rev. 2, ‘‘Steam Generator Program 

Guidelines’’ and the Draft Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases for Plugging Degraded 

PWR Steam Generator Tubes.’’ Therefore, the 

margin against tube burst/pullout is 

maintained during normal and postulated 

accident conditions and the proposed change 

does not result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequence of a SGTR. 

The probability of a SLB is unaffected by 

the potential failure of a SG tube as the 

failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB 

event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow 

restrictions resulting from the leakage path 

above potential cracks through the tube-totubesheet crevice. 

The leak rate during postulated accident 

conditions has been shown to remain within 

the accident analysis assumptions for all 

axial or circumferentially oriented cracks 

occurring 17 inches below the top of the 

tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is 

limited to 0.10 gallons per minute (gpm) (or 

150 gallons per day (gpd)), the attendant 

accident condition leak rate, assuming all 

leakage to be from indications below 17 

inches from the top of the tubesheet would 

be bounded by 0.5 gpm. This value is within 

the accident analysis assumptions for the 

limiting design basis accident for Byron 2, 

which is the postulated SLB event. 

Based on the above, the performance 

criteria of NEI–97–06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 

continue to be met and the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of the applicable 

accidents previously evaluated (i.e., SLB, the 

locked rotor and control rod ejection 

accidents). 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any changes or mechanisms that create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected 

to be maintained for all plant conditions 

upon implementation of the interim alternate 

repair criterion. The proposed change does 

not introduce any new equipment or any 

change to existing equipment. No new effects 

on existing equipment are created nor are any 

new malfunctions introduced. 

Therefore, based on the above evaluation, 

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 change maintains the 

required structural margins of the steam 

generator tubes for both normal and accident 

conditions. NEI 97–06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 

are used as the basis in the development of 

the interim alternate repair criteria (IARC) 

methodology for determining that steam 

generator tube integrity considerations are 

maintained within acceptable limits. RG 

1.121 describes a method acceptable to the 

NRC staff for meeting General Design Criteria 

14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability 

and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121 

concludes that by determining the limiting 

safe conditions of tube wall degradation 

beyond which tubes with unacceptable 

cracking, as established by inservice 

inspection, should be removed from service 

or repaired, the probability and consequences 

of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety 

factors on loads for tube burst that are 

consistent with the requirements of Section 

III of the ASME Code. 

For axially oriented cracking located 

within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded 

due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES