[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35889-35896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17243]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0270]


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 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 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. 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

[[Page 35890]]

the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch (RDB), 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. Written comments may also 
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. 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.
    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 amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
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/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 
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 an exemption 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 
should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd7dadecdd6d1d891dbd0dcd4dacbffd1cddc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="355d5054475c5b521b515a565e5041755b47561b525a43">[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

[[Page 35891]]

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 using the agency's adjudicatory e-
filing system 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 toll-free help line 
number is 1-866-672-7640. A person filing electronically may also seek 
assistance by sending an e-mail to the NRC electronic filing Help Desk 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c8d6cdc1abd7e0f6eaf0f7e6e0c5ebf7e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e233d262a403c0b1d011b1c0d0b2e001c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, 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, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the request and/
or petition 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, the 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 electronically 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#374753451945524458424554527759455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="552531277b2730263a20273630153b27367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: May 28, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.7.6.k, Steam 
Generator (SG) Program, to exclude a portion of the tubes below the top 
of the SG tube sheet from periodic SG tube inspections. The change also 
adds additional reporting criteria to TS 6.8.1.7, Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report. This permanent change is supported by Westinghouse 
Electric Company, LLC Topical Report WCAP-17071-P, ``H*: Alternate 
Repair Criteria for the Tubesheet Expansion Region in Steam Generators 
with Hydraulically Expanded Tubes (Model F).''
    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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure 
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change 
that alters the steam generator (SG) inspection and reporting 
criteria does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any 
plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed 
event. The proposed change will not alter the operation of, or 
otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment 
that initiates an analyzed accident.
    Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting 
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the SG tube 
inspection and repair criteria are the steam generator tube rupture 
(SGTR) event, the steam line break (SLB), and the feed line break 
(FLB) postulated accidents.
    During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins 
of the SG tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H* distance 
will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks within the 
tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the presence of 
the tubesheet and the tube-to-tubesheet joint. Tube burst cannot 
occur within the thickness of the tubesheet. The tube-to-tubesheet 
joint constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, 
thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from 
the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side, 
and tubesheet rotation. Based on this design, the structural margins 
against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases 
for Plugging Degraded [pressurized-water reactor] PWR Steam 
Generator Tubes,'' and Technical Specification 6.7.6.k, are 
maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions.
    The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage 
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The 
proposed change maintains structural and leakage integrity of the SG 
tubes consistent with the performance criteria of Technical 
Specification 6.7.6.k. Therefore, the proposed change results in no 
significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR 
accident.
    At normal operating pressures, leakage from tube degradation 
below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by the tube-
to-tubesheet crevice. Consequently, negligible normal operating 
leakage is expected from degradation below the inspected depth 
within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are 
not affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow during the 
event as primary-to-

[[Page 35892]]

secondary leakage flow through a postulated tube that has been 
pulled out of the tubesheet is essentially equivalent to a severed 
tube. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of a SGTR.
    The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure 
of a steam generator tube as the failure of tube is not an initiator 
for a SLB event.
    The leakage factor of 2.02 for Seabrook Station, for a 
postulated SLB/FLB, has been calculated as shown in Table 9-7 of 
[WCAP-17071-P]. However, NextEra will apply a factor of 2.03 to the 
normal operating leakage associated with the tubesheet expansion 
region in the condition monitoring (CM) and operational assessment 
(OA). The leakage factor of 2.03 is a bounding value for all SGs, 
both hot and cold legs, in Table 9-7 of [WCAP-17071-P]. Through 
application of the limited tubesheet inspection scope, the existing 
operating leakage limit provides assurance that excessive leakage 
(i.e., greater than accident analysis assumptions) will not occur. 
The assumed accident induced leak rate is 500 gallons per day (gpd) 
during a postulated steam line break in the faulted loop. Using the 
limiting leak rate factor of 2.03, this corresponds to an acceptable 
level of operational leakage of 246 gpd. Therefore, the technical 
specification leak rate limit of 150 gpd provides significant added 
margin against the 500 gpd accident analysis leak rate assumption.
    No leakage factor will be applied to the locked rotor or control 
rod ejection transients due to their short duration.
    For the CM assessment, the component of leakage from the prior 
cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 
2.03 and added to the total leakage from any other source and 
compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the 
OA, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and 
the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet 
expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and compared to the 
observed operational leakage.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection 
and reporting criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create 
new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting 
single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety 
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident 
analyses. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    The proposed change limits the portion of the tube that must be 
inspected and repaired to the portion of the tube within the 
tubesheet necessary to maintain structural and leakage integrity 
under both normal and accident conditions. WCAP-17071-P identifies 
the specific inspection depth below which any type tube degradation 
[is] shown to have no impact on the performance criteria in [Nuclear 
Energy Institute] NEI 97-06 Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program 
Guidelines.''
    The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection 
and reporting criteria maintains the required structural margins of 
the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. Nuclear Energy 
Institute 97-06, ``Steam Generator Program Guidelines,'' and NRC 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam 
Generator Tubes,'' are used as the bases in the development of the 
limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that 
SG tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable 
limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for 
meeting General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, ``Reactor Coolant Pressure 
Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant System Design,'' GDC 31, 
``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' and 
GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' by 
reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR. RG 1.121 
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube 
wall degradation, 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 American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
    For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube 
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 
circumferentially oriented cracking, Westinghouse WCAP-17071-P 
defines a length of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides 
the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced 
forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the 
limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude 
unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant 
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage as described in 
WCAP-17071-P shows that significant margin exists between an 
acceptable level of leakage during normal operating conditions (246 
gpd) that ensures meeting the SLB accident-induced leakage 
assumption and the technical specification leakage limit of 150 gpd.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in any 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: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: June 2, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude portions of the tube below the top 
of the steam generator tubesheet from periodic SG tube inspections. In 
addition, this amendment request proposes to revise TS 5.6.10, ``Steam 
Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to provide reporting requirements 
specific to the permanent alternate repair criteria. This permanent 
change is supported by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, WCAP-17071-P, 
``H*: Alternate Repair Criteria for the Tubesheet Expansion Region in 
Steam Generators with Hydraulically Expanded Tubes (Model F).''
    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 previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure 
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change 
that alters the steam generator inspection criteria does not have a 
detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, 
or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change 
will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure 
probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed 
accident.
    Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting 
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam 
generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam 
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event and the feedline break (FLB) 
postulated accidents.
    During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins 
of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over 
the H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with 
cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the presence of the 
tubesheet and constraint provided by the tube-to-tubesheet joint. 
Tube burst cannot occur within the thickness of the tubesheet. The 
tube-to-tubesheet joint constraint results from the hydraulic 
expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and 
tubesheet, from the differential pressure between the

[[Page 35893]]

primary and secondary side, and tubesheet deflection. Based on this 
design, the structural margins against burst, as discussed in 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR 
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,'' and TS 5.5.9 
are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions.
    The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage 
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The 
proposed change maintains structural and leakage integrity of the 
steam generator tubes consistent with the performance criteria in TS 
5.5.9. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant 
increase in the probability of the occurrence of [an] SGTR accident.
    At normal operating pressures, leakage from tube degradation 
below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by the tube-
to-tubesheet joint. Consequently, negligible normal operating 
leakage is expected from degradation below the inspected depth 
within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are 
not affected by the primary to secondary leakage flow during the 
event as primary to secondary leakage flow through a postulated tube 
that has been pulled out of the tubesheet is essentially equivalent 
to a severed tube. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 
a significant increase in the consequences of [an] SGTR.
    The probability of [an] SLB [steam line break] is unaffected by 
the potential failure of a steam generator tube as the failure of 
the tube is not an initiator for [an] SLB event.
    The leakage factor of 2.03 for WCGS, for a postulated SLB/FLB, 
has been calculated as shown in Table 9-7 of WCAP-17071-P and will 
be applied to the normal operating leakage associated with the 
tubesheet expansion region in the condition monitoring (CM) and 
operational assessment (OA). The leakage factor of 2.03 is a 
bounding value for all steam generators, both hot and cold legs, in 
Table 9-7 of [WCAP-17071-P]. Through application of the limited 
tubesheet inspection scope, the existing operating leakage limit 
provides assurance that excessive leakage (i.e., greater than 
accident analysis assumptions) will not occur. The accident induced 
leak rate limit for WCGS is 1.0 gpm [gallons per minute]. The TS 
3.4.13, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Operational LEAKAGE,'' 
operational leak rate limit is 150 gpd [gallons per day] (0.1 gpm) 
through any one steam generator. Consequently, accident leakage is 
approximately 10 times the allowable leakage, if only one steam 
generator is leaking. Using [an] SLB/FLB overall leakage factor of 
2.03, accident induced leakage is approximately 0.5 gpm, if all 4 
steam generators are leaking at 150 gpd at the beginning of the 
accident. Therefore, significant margin exists between the 
conservatively estimated accident induced leakage and the allowable 
accident leakage (1.0 gpm).
    No leakage factor will be applied to the locked rotor or control 
rod ejection transients due to their short duration.
    For the CM assessment, the component of leakage from the prior 
cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 
2.03 and added to the total leakage from any other source and 
compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the 
OA, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and 
the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet 
expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and compared to the 
observed operational leakage.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection 
and reporting criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create 
new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting 
single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and safety 
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident 
analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change defines the portion of the tube that must be 
inspected and repaired. WCAP-17071-P identifies the specific 
inspection depth below which any type tube degradation shown to have 
no impact on the performance criteria in NEI [Nuclear Energy 
Institute] 97-06, Revision 2.
    The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection 
and reporting criteria maintains the required structural margins of 
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. 
NEI 97-06, Revision 2, and RG 1.121, are used as the bases 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 [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] for 
meeting GDC [General Design Criterion] 14, ``Reactor Coolant 
Pressure Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant System Design,'' GDC 
31, ``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' 
and GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' by 
reducing the probability and consequences of [an] SGTR. RG 1.121 
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube 
wall degradation the probability and consequences of [an] SGTR are 
reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that 
are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
    For axially-oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube 
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 
circumferentially-oriented cracking, WCAP-17071-P, defines a length 
of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides the necessary 
resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with 
applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot 
and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude 
unacceptable primary to secondary leakage during all plant 
conditions. Using the methodology for determining leakage as 
described in WCAP-17071-P, it is shown that significant margin 
exists between conservatively estimated accident induced leakage and 
the allowable accident leakage (1.0 gpm) if all four steam 
generators are assumed to be leaking at the TS leakage limit at the 
beginning of the design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in any 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    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). 
Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 
2 and 73. The intent of this order is to make those requirements more 
specific to this proceeding, but nothing in this order is intended to 
conflict with those regulations.
    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

[[Page 35894]]

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#5b333e3a2932353c753f3438303e2f1b352938753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533b3632213a3d347d373c30383627133d21307d343c25">[email protected]</span></a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd929a9e909c94919e989389988fd38f988e92888f9e98bd938f9ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="650a020608040c0906000b1100174b1700160a10170600250b17064b020a13">[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. Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.22(b), no person may have access to SGI 
without first being determined to be trustworthy and reliable based on 
a background check. Accordingly, if the requested information is for 
SGI, Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,'' and 
Form FD-258 (fingerprint card)--completed by any individual who would 
have access to SGI if the request is granted--must be submitted. For 
Form SF-85, the requestor(s) should only complete sections 1-11, the 
certification and the authorization for release. 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 form must be signed in original ink, accompanied by 
a check or money order payable in the amount of $200.00 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. Office of Administration, Security Processing 
Unit, Mail Stop TWB-05 B32M, 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation 
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 adjudicate a specific contention in 
this NRC proceeding \3\ and whether the proposed recipient has the 
technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, or 
education) to effectively utilize 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 in accordance with 
10 CFR 73.22(b). The NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an 
inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection 
systems meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. 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

[[Page 35895]]

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 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 
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 15th day of July 2009.

    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.

[[Page 35896]]

 
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. E9-17243 Filed 7-20-09; 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>