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, 76041-76050 [2010-30481]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices Automation, Inc., and Seaton Corporation working on-site at the Winston-Salem, North Carolina location of Dell Products LP, Winston-Salem (WS–1) Division. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–72,575 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Dell Products LP, WinstonSalem (WS–1) Division, including on-site leased workers of Adecco, Spherion, Patriot Staffing, Manpower, TEKsystems, APN, ICONMA, Staffing Solutions, South East, Omni Resources and Recovery, SecurAmerica, LLC, Industrial Distribution Group (IDG), LLC, ARM Automation, Inc., and Seaton Corporation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 13, 2008 through March 1, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of November 2010. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–30543 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–70,784] emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Chrysler Group LLC Formerly Known as Chrysler LLC Kenosha Engine Plant Including On-Site Leased Workers From Caravan Knight Facilities Management LLC, Syncreon, Mahar Tool Supply Company, Waste Management, Quaker Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, Crassociates, Inc., CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, Prodriver Leasing Systems, Inc., Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis Kenosha, WI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 13, 2010, applicable to workers of Chrysler Group, LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, Kenosha Engine Plant, Kenosha, Wisconsin (subject firm). The Department’s notice of determination was published in the Federal Register VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 on November 5, 2009 (74 57340). The certification applicable to workers of the subject firm was amended May 10, 2010 to include on-site leased workers from Caravan Knight Facilities Management and on August 13, 2010 to include onsite leased workers from Syncreon. The Department’s notices of amended certification were published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34170) and August 30, 2010 (75 FR 52982), respectively. The workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to the production of V–6 automobile engines. At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that workers leased from not only Caravan Knight Facilities Management LLC and Syncreon, but also Mahar Tool Supply Company, Waste Management, Quaker Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, CRAssociates, Inc., CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, ProDriver Leasing Systems, Inc., Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis, Kenosha, Wisconsin were employed on-site at the Kenosha, Wisconsin location of Chrysler Group, LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, Kenosha Engine Plant. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Mahar Tool Supply Company, Waste Management, Quaker Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, CRAssociates, Inc., CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, ProDriver Leasing Systems, Inc., Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis working on-site at the Kenosha, Wisconsin location of Chrysler Group, LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, Kenosha Engine Plant. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–70,784 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Chrysler Group, LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, Kenosha Engine Plant, including on-site leased workers of Caravan Knight Facilities Management LLC, Syncreon, Mahar Tool Supply Company, Waste Management, Quaker Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, CRAssociates, Inc., CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, ProDriver Leasing Systems, Inc., Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis, Kenosha, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 27, 2008, through September 2, 2011, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76041 certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of November 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–30540 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2010–0364] 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, NRC, 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), 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 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 76042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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 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, Room O1– F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 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, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or at http://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 Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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, then 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 EFiling 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 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices identification (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 NRCissued 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http://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 the Electronic Information Exchange System, 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 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 their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive an 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76043 electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http:// ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, 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 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, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Date of amendment request: July 27, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed license amendment request includes three parts: (1) The proposed Fermi 2 Cyber Security Plan, (2) an Implementation Schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing Facility Operating License Physical Protection license condition to require Fermi 2 to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission approved Cyber Security Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 76044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54. A Federal Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), 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 10 CFR part 50 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 approved schedule. 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: emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as part of the facility’s overall program for physical protection. The Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any plant modifications. Rather, the Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are implemented in order to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the facility’s digital computer and communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks. The proposed change requiring the implementation and maintenance of a Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated. Therefore, the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan as a part of the facility’s other physical protection programs specified in the facility’s operating license has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 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 incorporates a new requirement, in the Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as part of the facility’s overall program for physical protection. The creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of the plant’s configuration, including changes in the allowable modes of operation. Issuance of the Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any modifications; however, implementation of the plan will require future modifications. The Cyber Security Plan does not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to a transient condition. Because the proposed change does not change or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms, no new accident precursors are created. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as part of the facility’s overall program for physical protection. Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because the Cyber Security Plan does not alter the operation of plant equipment, the proposed change does not change established safety margins. 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: David G. Pettinari, Attorney—Corporate Matters, 688 WCB, Detroit Edison Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, Michigan 48226. PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO), Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: July 26, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment includes three parts: The proposed PNP Cyber Security Plan, an implementation schedule, and a proposed sentence to be added to the Renewed Facility Operating License Physical Protection license condition for ENO to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commissionapproved PNP Cyber Security Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), 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 to submit a Cyber Security Plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. The regulation also requires that each submittal include a proposed implementation schedule, and the 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’s Notice of Availability, 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 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of the plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The PNP Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The PNP 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 Renewed Facility Operating License for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are administrative in nature and do 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 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP 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 PNP 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 PNP 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 Renewed Facility 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. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. 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 result of the implementation of the PNP 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 Renewed Facility 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. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida Date of amendment request: July 28, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment includes three parts: The proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station Cyber Security Plan, an Implementation Schedule, and a proposed sentence to be added to the existing renewed facility operating licenses Physical Protection license condition to require Florida Power and Light Company to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission approved cyber security plan as required by amended 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed Cyber Security Plan was submitted in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 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 licensees provided their analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the Facility Operating License to implement and maintain a Cyber Security Plan as part of the facility’s overall program for physical protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the 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 the facility’s digital computer and communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks. The Cyber Security Plan will not alter previously evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76045 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 amendment 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 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 Facility Operating License do not result in the need for any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis, and no new equipment failure modes are created. 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 amendment does not create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power and Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– 0420. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 76046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1, 2010 (TS–470). Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 73, ‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks,’’ establish the requirements for a cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule, and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. 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 result in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that this amendment does not involve a significant VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 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, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on December 11, 2009, December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1, 2010 (TS 09–06). PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 73, ‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks’’ establish the requirements for a cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule, and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. 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 result in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 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, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a letter dated August 5, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee proposed an amendment to the Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) for NAPS Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services, Inc., letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2, submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. This notice only VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 addresses the application as it pertains to NAPS Units 1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the NAPS Units 1 and 2 Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule, and proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 2.E, ‘‘Physical Protection,’’ of NAPS Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License NPF– 4 and NPF–7 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s NSHC analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff’s review is presented below. 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and communication systems, networks and functions are adequately protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat. Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design basis threat. The proposed change 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 first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber security where no requirement existed before. The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do 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 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76047 accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related structures, systems and components (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 of any new or different 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 previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change 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. Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power Station (Surry), Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a letter dated August 5, 2010. Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 76048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES information (SUNSI). The licensee proposed an amendment to the Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) for Surry Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services, Inc., letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Units 1 and 2, submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to Surry Units 1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the Surry Units 1 and 2 Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule, and proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 3.J, ‘‘Physical Protection,’’ of Surry Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License DPR–32 and DPR–37 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s NSHC analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff’s review is presented below. 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and communication systems, networks and functions are adequately protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat. Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design basis threat. The proposed change 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 first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 cyber security where no requirement existed before. The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do 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. This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related structures, systems and components (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 of any new or different 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 previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change 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. Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention Preparation Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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 (NRC or the 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. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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) 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 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. 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 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. 76049 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 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 1st day of December 2010. For the 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). 10 ...................................... emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 60 ...................................... 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 76050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices Day Event/Activity 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). 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. 25 ...................................... 30 ...................................... 40 ...................................... A ....................................... A + 3 ................................. A + 28 ............................... A + 53 ............................... A + 60 ............................... >A + 60 ............................. [FR Doc. 2010–30481 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040–08502, 040–09073, 030– 38260; NRC–2010–0300] Notice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Consent to Indirect Change of Control and Issuance of License Amendment to Materials License SUA–1341, SUA–1596, and 49– 29384–01 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of approval of indirect change of control and issuance of license amendment. AGENCY: Ron C. Linton, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–7777; fax number: (301) 415– 5369; e-mail: ron.linton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice of NRC consent to the indirect change of control and issuance of license emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 amendments to Materials License Numbers SUA–1341, SUA–1569, and 49–29384–01. Materials License SUA– 1341 authorizes Uranium One USA, Inc., to possess uranium and byproduct material at its Irigaray and Christensen Ranch in situ recovery (ISR) project in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. The project is currently in operating status, but is not producing uranium at this time. Materials License SUA–1569 authorizes Uranium One Americas, Inc., to possess uranium and byproduct material at its Moore Ranch ISR Project in Campbell County, Wyoming. The project was licensed on September 30, 2010, and is not producing uranium at this time. Materials License 49–29384–01 authorizes Uranium One Americas, Inc. to possess byproduct material— specifically, sealed source of hydrogen3—in an amount not to exceed three (3) Curies (Ci) per source and 12 Ci in total for well logging. By letter dated July 20, 2010, Uranium One, Inc., Uranium One USA, Inc. and Uranium One Americas, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Uranium One’’) submitted an application and license amendment request for approval of an indirect change of control of Uranium One USA, Inc.’s Materials License SUA–1341 for its Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML102090404). The July 20, 2010 submittal also referenced Uranium One’s materials license applications for Moore Ranch Project PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (Docket No. 40–9073), Jab & Antelope Project (Docket No. 40–9079), and the Ludeman Project (Docket No. 40–9095) as being affected by the change of control. Subsequently, Materials License SUA–1596 was issued to Uranium One Americas, Inc. for its Moore Ranch Project on September 30, 2010. In a separate submittal dated June 23, 2010 (ML102100530), Uranium One submitted notification of an indirect change of control regarding its Materials License 49–29384–01. NRC has determined that the application constitutes a request for a license transfer and is collectively treating the July 20, 2010, and June 23, 2010, submittals as an application for the change of control of NRC licenses SUA– 1341, SUA–1596 and 49–29384–01. The indirect change of control is a result of a share purchase transaction, wherein JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) (a Russian corporation) and its wholly owned subsidiaries Effective Energy N.V. (a Dutch limited liability company) and Uranium Mining Company (a Russian corporation), will acquire no less than 51 percent of Uranium One, Inc.’s (a Canadian Corporation) common shares. Uranium One, Inc. is the parent company of Uranium One USA, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and Uranium One Americas, Inc. (a Nevada corporation), both NRC licensees. ARMZ is owned by JSC Atomenergoprom and JSC Atomenergoprom’s wholly owned subsidiary JSC TVEL. JSC Atomenergoprom is a wholly owned E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76041-76050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30481]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0364]


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, NRC, 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), 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

[[Page 76042]]

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, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for 
leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the 
Board) Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the 
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 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 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, then 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

[[Page 76043]]

identification (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 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 http://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 
http://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 the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
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 http://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 http://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 an 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. 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 
http://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 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, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, 
or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
license amendment request includes three parts: (1) The proposed Fermi 
2 Cyber Security Plan, (2) an Implementation Schedule, and (3) a 
proposed sentence to be added to the existing Facility Operating 
License Physical Protection license condition to require Fermi 2 to 
fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission 
approved Cyber Security Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code

[[Page 76044]]

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54.
    A Federal Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), 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 10 CFR part 50 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 approved schedule.
    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 incorporates a new requirement, in the 
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as 
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. The 
Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any plant modifications. 
Rather, the Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 
CFR 73.54 are implemented in order to identify, evaluate, and mitigate 
cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat, thereby 
achieving high assurance that the facility's digital computer and 
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed change requiring the implementation and maintenance of a 
Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add 
any accident initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated.
    Therefore, the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan as a part of 
the facility's other physical protection programs specified in the 
facility's operating license has no impact on 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 incorporates a new requirement, in the 
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as 
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. The 
creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident 
precursors may be created by modifications of the plant's 
configuration, including changes in the allowable modes of operation. 
Issuance of the Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any 
modifications; however, implementation of the plan will require future 
modifications. The Cyber Security Plan does not affect the control 
parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment 
to a transient condition. Because the proposed change does not change 
or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation, or failure 
mechanisms, no new accident precursors are created.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
    The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the 
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as 
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. Plant 
safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for 
Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety limits specified 
in the Technical Specifications. Because the Cyber Security Plan does 
not alter the operation of plant equipment, the proposed change does 
not change established safety margins.
    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: David G. Pettinari, Attorney--Corporate 
Matters, 688 WCB, Detroit Edison Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, 
Michigan 48226.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO), Docket No. 50-255, Palisades 
Nuclear Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 26, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment includes three parts: The proposed PNP Cyber Security Plan, 
an implementation schedule, and a proposed sentence to be added to the 
Renewed Facility Operating License Physical Protection license 
condition for ENO to fully implement and maintain in effect all 
provisions of the Commission-approved PNP Cyber Security Plan as 
required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
Section 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 
13926), 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 to submit a Cyber Security Plan that satisfies the requirements of 
the Rule. The regulation also requires that each submittal include a 
proposed implementation schedule, and the 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's 
Notice of Availability, 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 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security 
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP Cyber Security 
Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of the plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The PNP Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to

[[Page 76045]]

mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The PNP 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 Renewed Facility 
Operating License for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative in nature and do 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 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security 
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP 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 PNP 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 PNP 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 Renewed Facility 
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.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security 
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. 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 result of the implementation of the PNP 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 Renewed Facility 
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.

    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 Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, 
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida

    Date of amendment request: July 28, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment includes three parts: The proposed Turkey Point Nuclear 
Generating Station Cyber Security Plan, an Implementation Schedule, and 
a proposed sentence to be added to the existing renewed facility 
operating licenses Physical Protection license condition to require 
Florida Power and Light Company to fully implement and maintain in 
effect all provisions of the Commission approved cyber security plan as 
required by amended 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed Cyber Security Plan 
was submitted in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 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 licensees provided 
their analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 
which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain a Cyber 
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical 
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility 
Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the 
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the 
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 the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from 
cyber attacks. The 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 amendment 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
    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 Facility Operating License 
do not result in the need for any new or different FSAR design basis 
accident analysis, and no new equipment failure modes are created. 
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 amendment does not create a possibility 
for an accident of a new or different type than those 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power and 
Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.

[[Page 76046]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on 
December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1, 2010 (TS-470).
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal 
Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule 
that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 
73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.'' Specifically, the 
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and 
communication systems and networks,'' establish the requirements for a 
cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication 
systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment 
includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule, 
and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, to fully implement and maintain in 
effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as 
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
    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 result in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on 
December 11, 2009, December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1, 
2010 (TS 09-06).
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal 
Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule 
that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 
73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.'' Specifically, the 
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and 
communication systems and networks'' establish the requirements for a 
cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication 
systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment 
includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule, 
and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, to fully implement and maintain in effect 
all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as required by 
10 CFR 73.54.
    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 result in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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

[[Page 76047]]

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.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a 
letter dated August 5, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee 
proposed an amendment to the Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) for NAPS 
Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment request letter, sent under 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., letterhead, Millstone Power Station 
Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2, 
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. 
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to NAPS Units 
1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the NAPS Units 1 and 2 
Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule, and 
proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 2.E, ``Physical 
Protection,'' of NAPS Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License NPF-4 
and NPF-7 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). 
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's NSHC analysis against the 
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented 
below.

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security 
Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high 
assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and 
communication systems, networks and functions are adequately 
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis 
threat.
    Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The 
Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer 
systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate 
protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design 
basis threat. The proposed change 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 first part of the proposed 
change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within 
the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber 
Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As 
such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber 
security where no requirement existed before.
    The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the 
existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These 
changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do 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.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
structures, systems and components (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 of any new or different 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 previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change 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.

    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station (Surry), Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a 
letter dated August 5, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards

[[Page 76048]]

information (SUNSI). The licensee proposed an amendment to the Facility 
Operating Licenses (FOL) for Surry Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment 
request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 
letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power 
Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Units 1 and 2, 
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. 
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to Surry 
Units 1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the Surry Units 1 
and 2 Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule, 
and proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 3.J, ``Physical 
Protection,'' of Surry Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License DPR-32 
and DPR-37 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement 
and maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis 
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The NRC 
staff reviewed the licensee's NSHC analysis against the standards of 10 
CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below.

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security 
Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high 
assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and 
communication systems, networks and functions are adequately 
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis 
threat.
    Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The 
Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer 
systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate 
protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design 
basis threat. The proposed change 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 first part of the proposed 
change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within 
the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber 
Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As 
such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber 
security where no requirement existed before.
    The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the 
existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These 
changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do 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.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
structures, systems and components (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 of any new or different 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 previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change 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.

    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

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

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, 
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(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 (NRC or the 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.

[[Page 76049]]

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 
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 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 1st day of December 2010.

    For the 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....