Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 51490-51498 [2010-20692]

Download as PDF 51490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2010–0279] Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-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). sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 60day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), 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 RADB 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 O1F21, 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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part002/part0020309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://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 requestor/ petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/ petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices 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 (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). 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 participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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 (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC- VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC’s public Web site at https:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/ site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC’s online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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 E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51491 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site at https:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. 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 firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https:// ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the 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 E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 51492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices 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. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 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, https://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. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would approve the cyber security plan and implementation schedule, and revise the license condition regarding physical protection to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved cyber security plan. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the FOL [facility operating license] to implement and maintain VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 a Cyber Security Plan as part of Energy Northwest’s overall program for physical protection of CGS [Columbia Generating Station]. Inclusion of the CGS Cyber Security Plan in the FOL itself does not involve any modifications to any safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the CGS Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving high assurance that CGS’s digital computer and communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks. The CGS Cyber Security Plan will not alter previously evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs as to how they are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed? Response: No. The proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the need for any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed amendment. 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 proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to the public. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006– 3817. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: July 15, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment to the Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The proposed JAF Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing renewed FOL Physical Protection license condition for JAFNPP requiring Entergy to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved JAFNPP Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks,’’ establish the requirements for a cyber security program. This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and implementation of the licensee’s cyber security program must be consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926. 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 E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 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. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the, structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The JAF Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of 10 CFR 73.54 are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The JAF Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 51493 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of the JAF Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and implementation of the licensee’s cyber security program must be consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926. 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: 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS). The PNPS Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the, structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for PNPS. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request: July 15, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The proposed Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing FOL Physical Protection license condition for PNPS requiring Entergy to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commissionapproved PNPS Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks,’’ establish the requirements for a cyber security program. This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to operate a PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 51494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for PNPS. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of the PNPS Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would approve the cyber security plan and implementation schedule, and revise the license condition regarding physical protection to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved cyber security plan. 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: Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) Cyber Security Plan (Plan) for NRC review and approval. The Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing Facility Operating License (FOL) license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC review and approval. The Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The Plan is designed to achieve PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC review and approval. Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as a result of the implementation of the Plan, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General Counsel— Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Date of amendment request: July 16, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The proposed Vermont Yankee Nuclear E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Power Station (VY) Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing FOL Physical Protection license condition for VY requiring Entergy to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commissionapproved VY Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks,’’ establish the requirements for a cyber security program. This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and implementation of the licensee’s cyber security program must be consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926. 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. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). The VY Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the, structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The VY Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The VY Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the probability VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for VY. The VY Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The VY Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The VY Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber security plan for NRC review and approval for VY. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of the VY Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The second part of the proposed change is an implementation schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51495 Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented December 18, 2009, and July 23, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would establish a Cyber Security Plan in conformance with the model Cyber Security Plan contained in Appendix A of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI–08–09, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ Revision 6, dated April 2010, with one deviation regarding the definition of a Cyber Attack as described in the licensee’s letter. The proposed amendment requests NRC approval of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Cyber Security Plan, provides an Implementation Schedule, and adds a sentence to the existing Unit 1 Operating License’s Physical Protection license condition to require WBN Unit 1 to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission approved Cyber Security Plan, as required by 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks.’’ 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: Criterion 1: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated Neither the proposed additional license condition nor the Cyber Security Plan directly impacts the physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Likewise, they do not change the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Neither the proposed additional license condition nor the Cyber Security Plan introduces any initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Any modifications to the physical configuration or function of SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected that might result from the implementation of the Cyber Security Plan will be fully evaluated by existing regulatory processes (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59) prior to their implementation to ensure that they do not E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 51496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES result in any increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that this proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated This proposed amendment is intended to provide high assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Inclusion of the additional condition in the Facility Operating License to implement the Cyber Security Plan does not directly alter the plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be installed, alter or create new accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Adding a license condition to require implementation of Cyber Security Plan will not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements of the Plan are designed to provide high assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Based on the above, the TVA concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified. 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention Preparation. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego County, New York Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI). B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A ‘‘potential party’’ is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI 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, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Office of the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1 The request must include the following information: (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice; (2) 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 C.(1); (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor’s basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the 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) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI. E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI. F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no 1 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 under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. 2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the receipt of the written access request. E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted 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 contentions by that later deadline. G. Review of Denials of Access. (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial. (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff’s adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 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. H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor 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 with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access. 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 51497 such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.3 I. 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 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. It is so ordered. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 2010. 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 IN THIS PROCEEDING Day Event/Activity 0 .................................... Publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) 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. Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner reply). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need 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 finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner 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. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). (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. 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. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 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 contentions by that later deadline. (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. Decision on contention admission. 10 .................................. 60 .................................. 20 .................................. 25 .................................. 30 .................................. 40 .................................. A .................................... A + 3 ............................. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES A + 28 ........................... A + 53 ........................... A + 60 ........................... > A + 60 ........................ 3 Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 51498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices [FR Doc. 2010–20692 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529, 50–530; NRC– 2009–0012] sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 43 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1, 2, and 3 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has published a draft plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG–1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses NPF–41, NPF–51 and NPF–74 for an additional 20 years of operation for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be considered, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and the proposed action must be received by 10/29/10; the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC–2009– 0012 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 NRC–2009–0012. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492–3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001. Faxes are to be sent to RADB at 301–492–3446. You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods: NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Accession Number for the draft Supplement 43 to the GEIS is ML102180167. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0012. In addition, a copy of the draft supplement to the GEIS is available to local residents near the site at the Litchfield Park Branch Library, 101 West Wigwam Boulevard, Litchfield Park, AZ 85340 and the Sam Garcia Western Avenue Library, 495 East Western Avenue, Avondale, AZ 85323. Comments received after the due date will be considered only if it is practical to do so. Also, electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-mail at PaloVerdeEIS@nrc.gov. All comments received by the Commission, including those made by Federal, State, local agencies, Native American Tribes, or other interested persons, will be made available electronically at the Commission’s PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and through ADAMS. The NRC staff will hold public meetings prior to the close of the public PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 comment period to present an overview of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept public comments on the document. Two meetings will be held at Tonopah Valley High School, Tonopah, Arizona and Estrella Mountain Community College in Avondale, AZ, on Wednesday, September 15, 2010. The first session will convene at 2 p.m. and will continue until 3:45 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7 p.m. and will continue until 9:30 p.m., as necessary. The meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) a presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each session at the same location. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing. Persons may pre-register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting by contacting Mr. David Drucker, the NRC Environmental Project Manager, at 1–800–368–5642, extension 6223, or by e-mail at David.Drucker@nrc.gov, no later than 9/ 2/10. Members of the public may also register to provide oral comments within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual, oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. If special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, the need should be brought to Mr. Drucker’s attention no later than 9/ 2/10, to provide the NRC staff adequate notice to determine whether the request can be accommodated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Drucker, Program Operations Branch, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O–11F1, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Mr. Drucker may be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jay Robinson, Chief, Program Operations Branch, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–20695 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51490-51498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20692]



[[Page 51490]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0279]


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

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 the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), 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 RADB 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 
O1F21, 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 https://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, https://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 requestor/petitioner 
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 
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one

[[Page 51491]]

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 (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). 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 participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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 
E-Filing 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    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. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the 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

[[Page 51492]]

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.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    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, https://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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would approve the cyber security plan and implementation 
schedule, and revise the license condition regarding physical 
protection to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in 
effect all provisions of the NRC-approved cyber security plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the FOL 
[facility operating license] to implement and maintain a Cyber 
Security Plan as part of Energy Northwest's overall program for 
physical protection of CGS [Columbia Generating Station]. Inclusion 
of the CGS Cyber Security Plan in the FOL itself does not involve 
any modifications to any safety-related structures, systems or 
components (SSCs). Rather, the CGS Cyber Security Plan describes how 
the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify, 
evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design 
basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving high assurance that 
CGS's digital computer and communications systems and networks are 
protected from cyber attacks. The CGS Cyber Security Plan will not 
alter previously evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 
design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs 
as to how they are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the 
need for any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis. 
It does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or 
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are 
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, 
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this 
proposed amendment.
    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 proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment to the Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) 
The proposed JAF Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, 
and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing renewed FOL 
Physical Protection license condition for JAFNPP requiring Entergy to 
fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission-approved JAFNPP Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 
73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the final 
rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, 
``Protection of digital computer and communication systems and 
networks,'' establish the requirements for a cyber security program. 
This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed 
to operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to 
submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the 
Rule. Each submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule 
and implementation of the licensee's cyber security program must be 
consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this 
application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal 
Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, Power Reactor Security 
Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926.
    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

[[Page 51493]]

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.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. The JAF Cyber 
Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the, 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The JAF Cyber Security Plan is 
designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope 
of 10 CFR 73.54 are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. The JAF Cyber 
Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The JAF Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The JAF Cyber Security Plan is 
designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope 
of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy is submitting a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for JAF. Plant safety 
margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, 
limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the 
technical specifications. Because there is no change to these 
established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of 
the JAF Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The 
proposed Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Cyber Security Plan, (2) 
an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to 
the existing FOL Physical Protection license condition for PNPS 
requiring Entergy to fully implement and maintain in effect all 
provisions of the Commission-approved PNPS Cyber Security Plan as 
required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, 
issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 
10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and communication 
systems and networks,'' establish the requirements for a cyber security 
program. This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently 
licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter 
to submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the 
Rule. Each submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule 
and implementation of the licensee's cyber security program must be 
consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this 
application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal 
Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security 
Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926.
    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.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for Pilgrim Nuclear Power 
Station (PNPS). The PNPS Cyber Security Plan does not require any 
plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the, 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan 
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The PNPS 
Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the 
systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from 
cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for PNPS. The PNPS Cyber 
Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents. The PNPS Cyber Security Plan

[[Page 51494]]

does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The PNPS 
Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the 
systems within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from 
cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for PNPS. Plant safety 
margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, 
limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the 
technical specifications. Because there is no change to these 
established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of 
the PNPS Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would approve the cyber security plan and implementation 
schedule, and revise the license condition regarding physical 
protection to require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in 
effect all provisions of the NRC-approved cyber security plan.
    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:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Grand Gulf 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) Cyber Security Plan (Plan) for NRC 
review and approval. The Plan does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The Plan does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The Plan is designed to 
achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 
CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
Facility Operating License (FOL) license condition for Physical 
Protection. Both of these changes are administrative and have no 
impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC 
review and approval. The Plan does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The Plan does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The Plan is designed to 
achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the 10 
CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL 
license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC 
review and approval. Plant safety margins are established through 
Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, 
and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because 
there is no change to these established safety margins as a result 
of the implementation of the Plan, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL 
license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative and do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont
    Date of amendment request: July 16, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The 
proposed Vermont Yankee Nuclear

[[Page 51495]]

Power Station (VY) Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, 
and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing FOL Physical 
Protection license condition for VY requiring Entergy to fully 
implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-
approved VY Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal 
Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that 
amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection 
of digital computer and communication systems and networks,'' establish 
the requirements for a cyber security program. This regulation 
specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to operate a 
nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a cyber 
security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each 
submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and 
implementation of the licensee's cyber security program must be 
consistent with the approved schedule. The background for this 
application is addressed by the NRC Notice of Availability, Federal 
Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security 
Requirements, published on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13926.
    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.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station (VY). The VY Cyber Security Plan does not require any 
plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the, 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents. The VY Cyber Security Plan 
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The VY 
Cyber Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the 
systems within the scope of 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from 
cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for VY. The VY Cyber 
Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect 
the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents. The VY Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The VY Cyber Security 
Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within 
the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks 
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 Entergy has submitted a cyber 
security plan for NRC review and approval for VY. Plant safety 
margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, 
limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the 
technical specifications. Because there is no change to these 
established safety margins as [a] result of the implementation of 
the VY Cyber Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the existing 
operating license condition for Physical Protection. Both of these 
changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented 
December 18, 2009, and July 23, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment would establish a Cyber Security Plan in conformance with the 
model Cyber Security Plan contained in Appendix A of Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) document NEI-08-09, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear 
Power Reactors,'' Revision 6, dated April 2010, with one deviation 
regarding the definition of a Cyber Attack as described in the 
licensee's letter. The proposed amendment requests NRC approval of the 
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Cyber Security Plan, provides an Implementation 
Schedule, and adds a sentence to the existing Unit 1 Operating 
License's Physical Protection license condition to require WBN Unit 1 
to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission approved Cyber Security Plan, as required by 10 CFR 73.54, 
``Protection of digital computer and communication systems and 
networks.''
    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:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    Neither the proposed additional license condition nor the Cyber 
Security Plan directly impacts the physical configuration or 
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). 
Likewise, they do not change the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Neither the proposed 
additional license condition nor the Cyber Security Plan introduces 
any initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Any 
modifications to the physical configuration or function of SSCs or 
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected that might result from the implementation of the Cyber 
Security Plan will be fully evaluated by existing regulatory 
processes (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59) prior to their implementation to 
ensure that they do not

[[Page 51496]]

result in any increase in the probability or consequence of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Create the Possibility of 
a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    This proposed amendment is intended to provide high assurance 
that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Inclusion 
of the additional condition in the Facility Operating License to 
implement the Cyber Security Plan does not directly alter the plant 
configuration, require new plant equipment to be installed, alter or 
create new accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to 
plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. 
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant 
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Adding a 
license condition to require implementation of Cyber Security Plan 
will not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements of the 
Plan are designed to provide high assurance that safety-related SSCs 
are protected from cyber attacks.
    Based on the above, the TVA concludes that the proposed 
amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding 
of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego County, New York

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered 
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the 
request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI 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, Maryland 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@nrc.gov, 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice;
    (2) 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 C.(1);
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of 
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis 
and specificity for a proffered contention;
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the 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) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in 
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification 
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the 
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access 
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited 
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or 
Protective Order\2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who 
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no

[[Page 51497]]

later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that 
information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the 
petitioner is granted 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 
contentions by that later deadline.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after 
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall 
immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason 
or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 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.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor 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 with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) 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 request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. 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 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.
    It is so ordered. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of 
August 2010.

    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
                           in this Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Day                             Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                                hearing and opportunity to petition for
                                leave to intervene, including order with
                                instructions for access requests.
10...........................  Deadline for submitting requests for
                                access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
                                Safeguards Information (SUNSI) 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.
60...........................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                                intervention containing: (i)
                                Demonstration of standing; (ii) all
                                contentions whose formulation does not
                                require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
                                petition for intervention; +7 requestor/
                                petitioner reply).
20...........................  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
                                informs the requestor of the staff's
                                determination whether the request for
                                access provides a reasonable basis to
                                believe standing can be established and
                                shows need 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).
25...........................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                                likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                                requestor/petitioner 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.
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 consistent with decision
                                issuing the protective order.
A + 28.......................  Deadline for submission of contentions
                                whose development depends upon acce