Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 35889 

II. Method of Collection 

Applicants will complete an online 

application hosted on the AREE Web 

site. The application form can be 

downloaded using Adobe software and 

submitted electronically using the email submit button located on the form. 

The collection of information from the 

application, resume, and letters of 

reference will all occur electronically. 

III. Data 

Title: Airborne Research Experience 

for Educators (AREE) Application. 

OMB Number: 2700–0137. 

Type of review: New Collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

25. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 25 hours. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of NASA, including 

whether the information collected has 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

NASA’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including automated 

collection techniques or the use of other 

forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection. 

They will also become a matter of 

public record. 

Walter Kit, 

NASA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17306 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (09–068)] 

Review of U.S. Human Space Flight 

Plans Committee; Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a meeting of the Review of 

U.S. Human Space Flight Plans 

Committee. 

DATES: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 

8 a.m.–12 noon (EDT). 

ADDRESSES: Carnegie Institution of 

Washington, 1530 P Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: 

(202) 939–1138. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Philip R. McAlister, Office of Program 

Analysis and Evaluation, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Washington, DC 20546. Phone 202–358– 

0712. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be open to the public up 

to the seating capacity of the room. It is 

imperative that the meeting be held on 

this date to accommodate the 

scheduling priorities of the key 

participants. The agenda topics for the 

meeting include: 

• Vision for Space Exploration 

Background. 

• Mars Society Views on U.S. Human 

Space Flight Program. 

• Science-related Briefings. 

• Arianespace Briefing. 

• Public Comment. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17305 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0270] 

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 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
35890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

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/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, 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 

hearing.docket@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 

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/esubmittals.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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 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/sitehelp/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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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-totubesheet 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-toVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:50 Jul 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
35892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 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 NonSafeguards 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
35894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / 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. 

2The 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. 

Administration, Security Processing Unit, Mail Stop 

TWB–05 B32M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0012. 

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. 

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 

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. 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. 

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. 

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 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 35895 

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). 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. 

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 

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 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
35896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

Day Event/activity 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards Meeting of the ACRS 

Subcommittee on Plant Operations 

and Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant 

Operations and Fire Protection will hold 

a meeting on August 18, 2009, in the 

Commission Hearing Room, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 

8:30 a.m.–12 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review draft 

final Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 

1.189, ‘‘Fire Protection for Nuclear 

Power Plants.’’ The Subcommittee will 

hear presentations by and hold 

discussions with representatives of the 

NRC staff, the Nuclear Energy Institute, 

and other interested persons regarding 

these matters. The Subcommittee will 

gather information, analyze relevant 

issues and facts, and formulate 

proposed positions and actions, as 

appropriate, for deliberation by the full 

Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Peter Wen (telephone: 

301–415–2832, e-mail: 

Peter.Wen@nrc.gov), five days prior to 

the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided to the Designated Federal 

Official 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

Designated Federal Official 1 day before 

the meeting. If an electronic copy 

cannot be provided within this 

timeframe, presenters should provide 

the Designated Federal Official with a 

CD containing each presentation at least 

30 minutes before the meeting. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted 

only during those portions of the 

meeting that are open to the public. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008, (73FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official (DFO) 

between 7:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (ET). 

Persons planning to attend this meeting 

are urged to contact the DFO at least two 

working days prior to the meeting to be 

advised of any potential changes to the 

agenda. 

Dated: July 15, 2009. 

Cayetano Santos, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–17289 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

Subcommittee on Digital 

Instrumentation and Control Systems; 

Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital 

Instrumentation and Control Systems 

(DI&C) will hold a meeting on August 

19–21, 2009, in the Commission Hearing 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 8:30 

a.m.–5 p.m. 

Thursday, August 20, 2009, 8:30 a.m.– 

5 p.m. 

Friday, August 21, 2009, 

8:30 a.m.–3 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with representatives of the NRC staff 

and the industry regarding several 

digital instrumentation and control 

systems issues: the Digital 

Instrumentation and Control Plan 2010– 

2013, Interim Staff Guidances (ISGs) on 

fuel facilities and licensing process, 

EPRI reports on operating experience 

and Diverse Actuation Systems Risk and 

Benefits, and other DI&C related topics. 

The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Ms. Christina 

Antonescu (telephone: 301–415–6792, 

e-mail: cea1@nrc.gov), five days prior to 

the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Thirty five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided to the Designated Federal 

Official 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

Designated Federal Official 1 day before 

the meeting. If an electronic copy 

cannot be provided within this 

timeframe, presenters should provide 

the Designated Federal Official with a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES