[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68831-68840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28129]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0335]
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), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s)
[[Page 68832]]
whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a
hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility operating license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the 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, 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
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) a digital 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 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 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
[[Page 68833]]
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 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], 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, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would approve the proposed Cyber Security Plan and
implementation schedule and would revise the existing Facility
Operating License (FOL) Physical Protection License Condition to
require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all
provisions of the Commission-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. 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 addition of the Cyber Security Plan to the Physical
Security Plan will not alter previously evaluated Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 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, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 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 of any new or different FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]
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.
[[Page 68834]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
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 License for KPS. In the
same amendment request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services,
Inc. letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; North Anna
Power Station Units 1 and 2; and Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans.
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to KPS. The
licensee requested NRC approval of the KPS Cyber Security Plan,
provided a proposed implementation schedule, and proposed to add a
sentence to License Condition 2.C.(4), ``Physical Protection,'' of KPS
Facility Operating License (FOL) DPR-43 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 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's NHSC analysis and
has prepared its own as follows:
Criterion 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.
Criterion 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.
Criterion 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 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
[[Page 68835]]
amendment to the Facility operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The
proposed Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Unit No. 1 Cyber Security
Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be
added to the existing FOL Physical Protection license condition 2.E to
require the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, the licensee)
to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the
Commission approved cyber plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal
Register notice 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 the approved schedule. The
background for this application is addressed by the NRC's Notice of
Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR
13926).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated
The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve 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.
Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are
protected from cyber attacks. The Plan itself does not require any
plant modifications. However, the Plan does describe how plant
modifications which involve digital computer systems are reviewed to
provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks,
up to and including the design basis threat as defined in the rule.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, require
new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, affect the function of plant
systems, or affect the manner in which systems are operated. The
first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems within the scope of the 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. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are
administrative and have no impact on the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated
The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve 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.
Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are
protected from cyber attacks. The Plan itself does not require any
plant modifications. However, the Plan does describe how plant
modifications which involve digital computer systems are reviewed to
provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks,
up to and including the design basis threat defined in the rule. The
proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, require new
plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, affect the function of plant
systems, or affect the manner in which systems are operated. The
first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are
protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The second part of the proposed change is an implementation
schedule. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are
administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety
The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve 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.
Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are
protected from cyber attacks. Plant safety margins are established
through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System
Settings and Safety limits specified in the Technical
Specifications, methods of evaluation that establish design basis or
change Updated Final Safety Analysis. Because there is no change to
these established safety margins, 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. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are
administrative and do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three
[[Page 68836]]
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 W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee
proposes an amendment to the Facility Operating License for the Duane
Arnold Energy Center. The licensee requests NRC approval of the NextEra
Energy Duane Arnold Cyber Security Plan, provides an implementation
schedule, and adds a sentence to the existing Operation License
Physical Protection license condition to require NextEra Energy Duane
Arnold to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the
Commission-approved Cyber Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC). The licensee's NSHC analysis, addressing each
issue described above, is reproduced below:
Criterion 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 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.
Criterion 2. Does the proposed amendment 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. 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.
Criterion 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. R.E. Helfrich, Florida Power & Light
Company, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would approve the proposed Cyber Security Plan and
implementation schedule and would revise the existing Facility
Operating License Physical Protection License Condition to require the
licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of
the Commission-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. Do the proposed amendments 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 the 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 implementation and incorporation of the Cyber
Security Plan into the Facility Operating License will not alter
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
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.
Criterion 2. Do the proposed amendments 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
[[Page 68837]]
of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the
Facility Operating License do not result in the need of any new or
different UFSAR 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 the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3. Do the proposed amendments 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 amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: July 27, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendments request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendments would approve the STP Nuclear Operating Company's request
for approval of South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Cyber Security Plan
in accordance with 10 CFR 73.54. The amendments would also revise
Section 2.F of the Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) numbered NPF-76
and NPF-80 to incorporate the requirement to fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved cyber
security plan. The requirements of 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of
digital computer and communication systems and networks,'' establish
the requirements for a cyber security program.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change incorporates a new requirement in the FOL to
implement and maintain the 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 implementation and
incorporation of the Cyber Security Plan into the FOL will not alter
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
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 changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2. Do the proposed changes 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 the Cyber Security Plan in the FOL do not
result in the need of any new or different UFSAR 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.
Criterion 3. Do the proposed changes 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 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: A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: August 12, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The
amendment would approve the Union Electric Company's request for
approval of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Cyber Security Plan in
accordance with 10 CFR 73.54. The amendments would also revise Section
2.E of the Facility Operating License (FOL) numbered NPF-30 to
incorporate the provisions to implement and maintain in effect all
provisions of the Commission-approved cyber security plan. The
requirements of 10
[[Page 68838]]
CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and communication systems
and networks,'' establish the requirements for a cyber security
program.
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
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain the 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 implementation and incorporation of the Cyber
Security Plan into the Facility Operating License 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, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated
This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR
73.54 and the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the 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 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 margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the
request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address for both offices is:
[[Page 68839]]
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 [email protected] and
[email protected], 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 November 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.......................... 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).
[[Page 68840]]
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-28129 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P