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, 20377-20385 [2011-8453]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20377-20385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8453]



[[Page 20377]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0068]


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a 
determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This notice includes notices of amendments containing sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92(c), 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; (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 
or at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If a request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission 
or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one

[[Page 20378]]

contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a 
final determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination 
will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make 
it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. 
Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) 
a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel 
or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-
Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 866-672-7640. The NRC 
Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory 
proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is 
available to the public at https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, 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

[[Page 20379]]

excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have 
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, 
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 15, July 23, August 18, November 18, September 24 
and December 21, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). This 
proposed amendment requests approval of the Exelon Cyber Security Plan, 
provides an Implementation Schedule, and adds a sentence to the 
existing Facility Operating License (FOL) Physical Protection license 
condition to require Exelon to fully implement and maintain in effect 
all provisions of the approved Cyber Security Plan. This proposed 
amendment is intended to conform to the model application contained in 
NEI 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power 
Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License (FOL) 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 FOL 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. Any plant modifications or changes 
resulting from implementation of the Cyber Security Plan will be 
evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if a License Amendment is 
required. Changes will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.54(q) to determine 
if the effectiveness of the site Emergency Plan is reduced. Changes 
will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.54(p) to determine if the 
effectiveness of the site Security Plan is reduced. Prior NRC 
approval will be obtained if required by these evaluations.
    In addition, an editorial change to correct two typographical 
errors as part of the Braidwood FOL revisions for Unit 1 and Unit 2 
is administrative in nature and has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    (2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the 
need for any new or different FSAR design basis accident analysis. 
It does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or 
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are 
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, 
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this 
proposed amendment. In addition, an editorial change to correct two 
typographical errors as part of the Braidwood FOL revisions for Unit 
1 and Unit 2 is administrative in nature and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    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. In addition, an editorial change to 
correct two typographical errors as part of the Braidwood FOL 
revisions for Unit 1 and Unit 2 is administrative in nature and has 
no impact on the margin of safety. 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.

[[Page 20380]]

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters 
dated September 28, November 12, and November 23, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI). The proposed 
amendment includes three parts: The proposed PBNP Cyber Security Plan, 
an implementation schedule, and a proposed sentence to be added to the 
Renewed Facility Operating License Physical Protection license 
condition for NextEra Energy (the licensee) to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved PBNP Cyber 
Security Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54. The Federal Register notice dated 
March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 73. The 
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of Digital Computer and 
Communication Systems and Networks'', establish the requirements for a 
Cyber Security Program. This regulation specifically requires each 
licensee currently licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under Part 
50 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 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 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 amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Renewed 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 Renewed 
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 amendment 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 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the Renewed Facility Operating 
License do not result in the need of any new or different FSAR 
design basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment 
that could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new 
equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 proposed amendment would not alter the way any safety-
related SSC functions and would not alter the way the plant is 
operated. The amendment provides assurance that safety-related SSCs 
are protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment would not 
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties 
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment would have 
no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the 
above considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC,. P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), 
Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 5, 2010, as supplemented on 
November 30, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed 
change requests to incorporate a new requirement into the facility 
operating license (FOL) to implement and maintain a cyber security plan 
(CSP). The CSP describes how the requirements of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.54 will be implemented in 
order to protect the health and safety of the public from radiological 
sabotage as a result of a cyber attack. The plan provides a description 
of how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 will be implemented at VCSNS 
Unit 1. The CSP establishes the licensing basis for the cyber security 
program for VCSNS Unit 1. The CSP establishes how to achieve high 
assurance that nuclear power plant digital computer and communication 
systems and networks associated with certain systems are adequately 
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis 
threat.
    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:


[[Page 20381]]



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 the plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be 
installed, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    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. The Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any plant 
modifications, nor does the Cyber Security Plan 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 itself does not require any plant modifications and 
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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edward I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia;

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama;

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia.

    Date of amendment request: July 16, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The license 
amendment request (LAR) proposes a revision to the Renewed Facility 
Operating License (FOL) to require the license to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC)-approved cyber security plan (CSP). The LAR was submitted 
pursuant to Section 73.54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) which requires licensees currently licensed to 
operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR Part 50 to submit a CSP for 
NRC review and approval.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below.

    (1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No
    The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally conforms to the template 
provided in [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 08-09, Revision 6, and 
provides a description of how the requirements of Sec.  73.54 will 
be implemented at Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle. [ * * *]. Accordingly, 
the SNC Cyber Security Plan establishes the licensing basis for the 
cyber security program for Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle sites. The SNC 
Cyber Security Plan provides high assurance that nuclear power plant 
digital computer and communication systems and networks associated 
with the following are adequately protected against cyber attacks up 
to and including the design basis threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions;
    2. Security functions;
    3. Emergency preparedness functions, including offsite 
communications; and
    4. Support systems and equipment which, if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions. These systems include, in part, all non-safety related 
balance of plant equipment which if compromised, could result in a 
reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system and therefore, 
impact reactivity.
    The SNC Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any plant 
modifications. However, the plan describes appropriate configuration 
management requirements to assure plant modifications involving 
digital computer systems are reviewed to provide adequate protection 
against cyber attacks, up to and including the design basis threat 
as defined in Sec.  73.1. The proposed change does not alter the 
plant configuration, involve the installation of new plant 
equipment, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any new 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The SNC Cyber Security Plan is designed to provide high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of Sec.  73.54 are 
protected from cyber attacks and does not impact the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    In addition, the proposed change modifies the existing FOL for 
each SNC-operated facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber Security 
Plan into the existing condition for physical protection. This 
change is administrative in nature and does not impact the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally conforms to the template 
provided in NEI 08-09, Revision 6. [ * * * ]. Accordingly, the SNC 
Cyber Security Plan provides high assurance that digital computer 
and communication systems and networks associated with the following 
are adequately

[[Page 20382]]

protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis 
threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions;
    2. Security functions;
    3. Emergency preparedness functions, including offsite 
communications; and,
    4. Support systems and equipment which, if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions. These systems include, in part, all non-safety related 
balance of plant equipment which if compromised, could result in a 
reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system and therefore, 
impact reactivity.
    The proposed SNC Cyber Security Plan does not alter plant 
configuration, install new plant equipment, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
tested, or inspected. The proposed SNC Cyber Security Plan includes 
appropriate configuration management controls to assure 
modifications do not introduce vulnerability to cyber attacks. The 
SNC Cyber Security Plan provides high assurance that the systems 
within the scope of Sec.  73.54 are adequately protected from cyber 
attacks. Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    In addition, the proposed change modifies the existing FOL for 
each SNC-operated facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber Security 
Plan by reference. This change is administrative in nature and does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally conforms to the template 
provided by NEI 08-09, Revision 6, and provides a description of how 
the requirements of Sec.  73.54 will be implemented at Hatch, 
Farley, and Vogtle. [ * * * ]. Accordingly, the SNC Cyber Security 
Plan establishes the licensing basis for the cyber security program 
for Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle sites. The SNC Cyber Security Plan 
provides high assurance that nuclear power plant digital computer 
and communication systems and networks associated with the following 
are adequately protected against cyber attacks up to and including 
the design basis threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions;
    2. Security functions;
    3. Emergency preparedness functions, including offsite 
communications; and
    4. Support systems and equipment which, if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions. These systems include, in part, all non-safety related 
balance of plant equipment which if compromised, could result in a 
reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system and therefore, 
impact reactivity.
    The proposed SNC Cyber Security Plan does not alter plant 
configuration, install new plant equipment, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
tested, or inspected. 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, the proposed 
change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
    In addition, the proposed change modifies the existing FOL for 
each SNC-operated facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber Security 
Plan by reference. This change is administrative in nature and does 
not involve a reduction in margin of safety.
    Based on the above, 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: Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders Nations 
Bank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 
30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket No. 50-395, South 
Carolina Public Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 
(VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edward I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia
    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered 
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the 
request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

[[Page 20383]]

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the 
Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, 
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited 
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 
The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of 
the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 
OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.\1\ The request must include the 
following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this 
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's 
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no 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 4th day of April 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified
                                  Non-Safeguards Information in This Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Day                                                Event/Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...............................  Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition
                                   for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access
                                   requests.

[[Page 20384]]

 
10..............................  Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
                                   Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a
                                   potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the
                                   information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in
                                   an adjudicatory proceeding.
60..............................  Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i)
                                   Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not
                                   require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7
                                   requestor/petitioner reply).
20..............................  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff's
                                   determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to
                                   believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also
                                   informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the
                                   proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff
                                   makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff
                                   begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted
                                   documents).
25..............................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                                   requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                                   staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with
                                   the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated
                                   officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
                                   for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding
                                   would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a
                                   ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access.
30..............................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40..............................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
                                   staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order
                                   and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file
                                   Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A...............................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer
                                   decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information
                                   (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or
                                   decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3...........................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to
                                   SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
A + 28..........................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon 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.
A + 53..........................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon
                                   access to SUNSI.
A + 60..........................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
>A + 60.........................  Decision on contention admission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 20385]]

[FR Doc. 2011-8453 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P