[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76041-76050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30481]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0364]
Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and
Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order
Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
I. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission, NRC, or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments To Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
[[Page 76042]]
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment
request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the
Board) Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1)
a digital
[[Page 76043]]
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if
the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive an ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to
intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[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, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737,
or by e-mail to [email protected].
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 27, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
license amendment request includes three parts: (1) The proposed Fermi
2 Cyber Security Plan, (2) an Implementation Schedule, and (3) a
proposed sentence to be added to the existing Facility Operating
License Physical Protection license condition to require Fermi 2 to
fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission
approved Cyber Security Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code
[[Page 76044]]
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54.
A Federal Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued
the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR
73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and communication systems and
networks,'' establish the requirements for a cyber security program.
This regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed
to operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR part 50 to submit a cyber
security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each
submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and
implementation of the licensee's cyber security program must be
consistent with approved schedule.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. The
Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any plant modifications.
Rather, the Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10
CFR 73.54 are implemented in order to identify, evaluate, and mitigate
cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat, thereby
achieving high assurance that the facility's digital computer and
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed change requiring the implementation and maintenance of a
Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add
any accident initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated.
Therefore, the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan as a part of
the facility's other physical protection programs specified in the
facility's operating license has no impact on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. The
creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident
precursors may be created by modifications of the plant's
configuration, including changes in the allowable modes of operation.
Issuance of the Cyber Security Plan itself does not require any
modifications; however, implementation of the plan will require future
modifications. The Cyber Security Plan does not affect the control
parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment
to a transient condition. Because the proposed change does not change
or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation, or failure
mechanisms, no new accident precursors are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
The proposed change incorporates a new requirement, in the
Operating License, to implement and maintain a cyber security plan as
part of the facility's overall program for physical protection. Plant
safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for
Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety limits specified
in the Technical Specifications. Because the Cyber Security Plan does
not alter the operation of plant equipment, the proposed change does
not change established safety margins.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David G. Pettinari, Attorney--Corporate
Matters, 688 WCB, Detroit Edison Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit,
Michigan 48226.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO), Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Nuclear Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 26, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment includes three parts: The proposed PNP Cyber Security Plan,
an implementation schedule, and a proposed sentence to be added to the
Renewed Facility Operating License Physical Protection license
condition for ENO to fully implement and maintain in effect all
provisions of the Commission-approved PNP Cyber Security Plan as
required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 73.54. Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR
13926), issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 73. The
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and
communication systems and networks,'' establish the requirements for a
Cyber Security Program. This regulation specifically requires each
licensee currently licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under part
50 to submit a Cyber Security Plan that satisfies the requirements of
the Rule. The regulation also requires that each submittal include a
proposed implementation schedule, and the implementation of the
licensee's Cyber Security Program must be consistent with the approved
schedule. The background for this application is addressed by the NRC's
Notice of Availability, published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP Cyber Security
Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of the plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected. The PNP Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components relied upon to
[[Page 76045]]
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The PNP Cyber
Security Plan is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems
within the scope of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber
attacks and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The second part of the proposed change is an implementation
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the Renewed Facility
Operating License for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are
administrative in nature and do not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. The PNP Cyber Security
Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The PNP Cyber Security Plan does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents. The PNP Cyber Security Plan is
designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within the scope
of the 10 CFR 73.54 Rule are protected from cyber attacks and does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
The second part of the proposed change is an implementation
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the Renewed Facility
Operating License condition for Physical Protection. Both of these
changes are administrative in nature and do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has submitted a Cyber Security
Plan for NRC review and approval for PNP. Plant safety margins are
established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the Technical
Specifications. Because there is no change to these established
safety margins as result of the implementation of the PNP Cyber
Security Plan, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The second part of the proposed change is an implementation
schedule, and the third part adds a sentence to the Renewed Facility
Operating License condition for Physical Protection. Both of these
changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed
amendment includes three parts: The proposed Turkey Point Nuclear
Generating Station Cyber Security Plan, an Implementation Schedule, and
a proposed sentence to be added to the existing renewed facility
operating licenses Physical Protection license condition to require
Florida Power and Light Company to fully implement and maintain in
effect all provisions of the Commission approved cyber security plan as
required by amended 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed Cyber Security Plan
was submitted in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and
communication systems and networks.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensees provided
their analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration,
which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain a Cyber
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility
Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the
Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54
are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber
attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat,
thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from
cyber attacks. The Cyber Security Plan will not alter previously
evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident
analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the
function of the plant safety-related SSCs as to how they are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the Facility Operating License
do not result in the need for any new or different FSAR design basis
accident analysis, and no new equipment failure modes are created.
It does not introduce new equipment that could create a new or
different kind of accident, and no new equipment failure modes are
created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms,
or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this
proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create a possibility
for an accident of a new or different type than those previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power and
Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
[[Page 76046]]
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on
December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1, 2010 (TS-470).
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal
Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule
that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part
73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.'' Specifically, the
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and
communication systems and networks,'' establish the requirements for a
cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication
systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment
includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule,
and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, to fully implement and maintain in
effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
Neither the proposed additional license condition nor the Cyber
Security Plan directly impacts the physical configuration or
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs).
Likewise, they do not change the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Neither the proposed
additional license condition nor the Cyber Security Plan introduces
any initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Any
modifications to the physical configuration or function of SSCs or
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected that might result from the implementation of the Cyber
Security Plan will be fully evaluated by existing regulatory
processes (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59) prior to their implementation to
ensure that they do not result in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this amendment does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously
Evaluated
This proposed amendment is intended to provide high assurance
that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Inclusion
of the additional condition in the Facility Operating License to
implement the Cyber Security Plan does not directly alter the plant
configuration, require new plant equipment to be installed, alter or
create new accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to
plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Adding a
license condition to require implementation of Cyber Security Plan
will not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements of the
Plan are designed to provide high assurance that safety-related SSCs
are protected from cyber attacks.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2009, as supplemented on
December 11, 2009, December 18, 2009, July 23, 2010, and October 1,
2010 (TS 09-06).
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The Federal
Register notice on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final rule
that amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part
73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.'' Specifically, the
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and
communication systems and networks'' establish the requirements for a
cyber security program to protect digital computer and communication
systems and networks against cyber attacks. The proposed amendment
includes the proposed Cyber Security Plan, its implementation schedule,
and a revised Physical Protection license condition for Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, to fully implement and maintain in effect
all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan as required by
10 CFR 73.54.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
Neither the proposed additional license condition nor the Cyber
Security Plan directly impacts the physical configuration or
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs).
Likewise, they do not change the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Neither the proposed
additional license condition nor the Cyber Security Plan introduces
any initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Any
modifications to the physical configuration or function of SSCs or
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected that might result from the implementation of the Cyber
Security Plan will be fully evaluated by existing regulatory
processes (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59) prior to their implementation to
ensure that they do not result in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this amendment does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously
Evaluated
This proposed amendment is intended to provide high assurance
that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Inclusion
of the additional condition in the Facility Operating License to
implement the Cyber Security Plan does not directly alter
[[Page 76047]]
the plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be
installed, alter or create new accident analysis assumptions, add
any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to
plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Adding a
license condition to require implementation of Cyber Security Plan
will not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements of the
Plan are designed to provide high assurance that safety-related SSCs
are protected from cyber attacks.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a
letter dated August 5, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee
proposed an amendment to the Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) for NAPS
Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment request letter, sent under
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., letterhead, Millstone Power Station
Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2,
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans.
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to NAPS Units
1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the NAPS Units 1 and 2
Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule, and
proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 2.E, ``Physical
Protection,'' of NAPS Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License NPF-4
and NPF-7 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC).
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's NSHC analysis against the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented
below.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security
Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high
assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and
communication systems, networks and functions are adequately
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis
threat.
Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The
Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer
systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate
protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design
basis threat. The proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The first part of the proposed
change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within
the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber
Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As
such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber
security where no requirement existed before.
The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the
existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These
changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related
structures, systems and components (SSCs) are protected from cyber
attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan
in the FOL do not result in the need of any new or different design
basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that
could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new
equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station (Surry), Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a
letter dated August 5, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
[[Page 76048]]
information (SUNSI). The licensee proposed an amendment to the Facility
Operating Licenses (FOL) for Surry Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment
request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services, Inc.,
letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; Kewaunee Power
Station; and Surry Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Units 1 and 2,
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans.
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to Surry
Units 1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC approval of the Surry Units 1
and 2 Cyber Security Plan, provided a proposed implementation schedule,
and proposed to add a sentence to License Condition 3.J, ``Physical
Protection,'' of Surry Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License DPR-32
and DPR-37 that would affirm when the licensee would fully implement
and maintain in effect all provisions of the Cyber Security Plan.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The NRC
staff reviewed the licensee's NSHC analysis against the standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security
Program for the sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high
assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and
communication systems, networks and functions are adequately
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis
threat.
Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high
assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The
Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer
systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate
protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design
basis threat. The proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The first part of the proposed
change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within
the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber
Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As
such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber
security where no requirement existed before.
The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the
existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These
changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related
structures, systems and components (SSCs) are protected from cyber
attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan
in the FOL do not result in the need of any new or different design
basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that
could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new
equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding,
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks.
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit.
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary,
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to
the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida City, Florida
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10
days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good
cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have
been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission), Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to
the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and
Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-
0001.
[[Page 76049]]
The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and
the Office of the General Counsel are [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 December 2010.
For the Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information in this Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10........................... Deadline for submitting requests for
access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with
information: supporting the standing of
a potential party identified by name and
address; describing the need for the
information in order for the potential
party to participate meaningfully in an
adjudicatory proceeding.
60........................... 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 76050]]
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. 2010-30481 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P