Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20377 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0068] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this notice. The Act 

requires the Commission to publish 

notice of any amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued and grants the 

Commission the authority to issue and 

make immediately effective any 

amendment to an operating license 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This notice includes notices of 

amendments containing sensitive 

unclassified non-safeguards information 

(SUNSI). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92(c), 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492– 

3446. Documents may be examined, 

and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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/adams.html. If a request for 

a hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene is filed within 60 days, the 

Commission or a presiding officer 

designated by the Commission or by the 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/ 

petitioner to relief. A requestor/ 

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. If a hearing is requested, and 

the Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The 

E-Filing process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued 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 EIE, users will be 

required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an 

e-mail notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. Documents submitted in 

adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 

NRC’s electronic hearing docket which 

is available to the public at http:// 

ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20379 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

amendment action, see the application 

for amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, 

or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278, Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

November 23, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated January 15, July 23, August 

18, November 18, September 24 and 

December 21, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). This proposed 

amendment requests approval of the 

Exelon Cyber Security Plan, provides an 

Implementation Schedule, and adds a 

sentence to the existing Facility 

Operating License (FOL) Physical 

Protection license condition to require 

Exelon to fully implement and maintain 

in effect all provisions of the approved 

Cyber Security Plan. This proposed 

amendment is intended to conform to 

the model application contained in NEI 

08–09, Revision 6, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan 

for Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment incorporates a 

new requirement in the Facility Operating 

License (FOL) to implement and maintain a 

Cyber Security Plan as part of the facility’s 

overall program for physical protection. 

Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the 

FOL itself does not involve any modifications 

to the safety-related structures, systems or 

components (SSCs). Rather, the Cyber 

Security Plan describes how the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be 

implemented to identify, evaluate, and 

mitigate cyber attacks up to and including 

the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby 

achieving high assurance that the facility’s 

digital computer and communications 

systems and networks are protected from 

cyber attacks. The Cyber Security Plan will 

not alter previously evaluated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident 

analysis assumptions, add any accident 

initiators, or affect the function of the plant 

safety-related SSCs. Any plant modifications 

or changes resulting from implementation of 

the Cyber Security Plan will be evaluated per 

10 CFR 50.59 to determine if a License 

Amendment is required. Changes will be 

evaluated per 10 CFR 50.54(q) to determine 

if the effectiveness of the site Emergency Plan 

is reduced. Changes will be evaluated per 10 

CFR 50.54(p) to determine if the effectiveness 

of the site Security Plan is reduced. Prior 

NRC approval will be obtained if required by 

these evaluations. 

In addition, an editorial change to correct 

two typographical errors as part of the 

Braidwood FOL revisions for Unit 1 and Unit 

2 is administrative in nature and has no 

impact on the probability or consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This proposed amendment provides 

assurance that safety-related SSCs are 

protected from cyber attacks. Implementation 

of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan 

in the FOL do not result in the need for any 

new or different FSAR design basis accident 

analysis. It does not introduce new 

equipment that could create a new or 

different kind of accident, and no new 

equipment failure modes are created. As a 

result, no new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as a result of this proposed 

amendment. In addition, an editorial change 

to correct two typographical errors as part of 

the Braidwood FOL revisions for Unit 1 and 

Unit 2 is administrative in nature and does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create a possibility for an accident of a 

new or different type than those previously 

evaluated. 

(3) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety is associated with the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant pressure boundary, and containment 

structure) to limit the level of radiation to the 

public. The proposed amendment would not 

alter the way any safety-related SSC 

functions and would not alter the way the 

plant is operated. The amendment provides 

assurance that safety-related SSCs are 

protected from cyber attacks. The proposed 

amendment would not introduce any new 

uncertainties or change any existing 

uncertainties associated with any safety 

limit. The proposed amendment would have 

no impact on the structural integrity of the 

fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure 

boundary, or containment structure. In 

addition, an editorial change to correct two 

typographical errors as part of the Braidwood 

FOL revisions for Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 

administrative in nature and has no impact 

on the margin of safety. Based on the above 

considerations, the proposed amendment 

would not degrade the confidence in the 

ability of the fission product barriers to limit 

the level of radiation to the public. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson. 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 

and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: July 8, 

2010, as supplemented by letters dated 

September 28, November 12, and 

November 23, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment includes three parts: The 

proposed PBNP Cyber Security Plan, an 

implementation schedule, and a 

proposed sentence to be added to the 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Physical Protection license condition for 

NextEra Energy (the licensee) to fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the Commission-approved 

PBNP Cyber Security Plan as required 

by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.54. The 

Federal Register notice dated March 27, 

2009, issued the final rule that amended 

10 CFR Part 73. The regulations in 10 

CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection of Digital 

Computer and Communication Systems 

and Networks’’, establish the 

requirements for a Cyber Security 

Program. This regulation specifically 

requires each licensee currently 

licensed to operate a nuclear power 

plant under Part 50 to submit a Cyber 

Security Plan that satisfies the 

requirements of the Rule. The regulation 

also requires that each submittal include 

a proposed implementation schedule, 

and the implementation of the licensee’s 

Cyber Security Program must be 

consistent with the approved schedule. 

The background for this application is 

addressed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC) Notice of 

Availability published on March 27, 

2009 (74 FR 13926). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment incorporates a 

new requirement in the Renewed Facility 

Operating License to implement and 

maintain a Cyber Security Plan as part of the 

facility’s overall program for physical 

protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security 

Plan in the Renewed Facility Operating 

License itself does not involve any 

modifications to the safety-related structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the 

Cyber Security Plan describes how the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be 

implemented to identify, evaluate, and 

mitigate cyber attacks up to and including 

the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby 

achieving high assurance that the facility’s 

digital computer and communications 

systems and networks are protected from 

cyber attacks. The Cyber Security Plan will 

not alter previously evaluated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident 

analysis assumptions, add any accident 

initiators, or affect the function of the plant 

safety-related SSCs as to how they are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This proposed amendment provides 

assurance that safety-related SSCs are 

protected from cyber attacks. Implementation 

of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan 

in the Renewed Facility Operating License do 

not result in the need of any new or different 

FSAR design basis accident analysis. It does 

not introduce new equipment that could 

create a new or different kind of accident, 

and no new equipment failure modes are 

created. As a result, no new accident 

scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

this proposed amendment. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create a possibility for an accident of a 

new or different type than those previously 

evaluated. 

(3) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment would not alter 

the way any safety-related SSC functions and 

would not alter the way the plant is operated. 

The amendment provides assurance that 

safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber 

attacks. The proposed amendment would not 

introduce any new uncertainties or change 

any existing uncertainties associated with 

any safety limit. The proposed amendment 

would have no impact on the structural 

integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant 

pressure boundary, or containment structure. 

Based on the above considerations, the 

proposed amendment would not degrade the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to limit the level of radiation 

to the public. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Blair, 

Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC,. P. O. Box 14000, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County, 

South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 5, 

2010, as supplemented on November 30, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

change requests to incorporate a new 

requirement into the facility operating 

license (FOL) to implement and 

maintain a cyber security plan (CSP). 

The CSP describes how the 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 

73.54 will be implemented in order to 

protect the health and safety of the 

public from radiological sabotage as a 

result of a cyber attack. The plan 

provides a description of how the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 will be 

implemented at VCSNS Unit 1. The CSP 

establishes the licensing basis for the 

cyber security program for VCSNS Unit 

1. The CSP establishes how to achieve 

high assurance that nuclear power plant 

digital computer and communication 

systems and networks associated with 

certain systems are adequately protected 

against cyber attacks up to and 

including the design basis threat. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20381 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change incorporates a new 

requirement, in the Operating License, to 

implement and maintain a cyber security 

plan as part of the facility’s overall program 

for physical protection. The Cyber Security 

Plan itself does not require any plant 

modifications. Rather, the Cyber Security 

Plan describes how the requirements of 10 

CFR 73.54 are implemented in order to 

identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks 

up to and including the design basis threat, 

thereby achieving high assurance that the 

facility’s digital computer and 

communications systems and networks are 

protected from cyber attacks. The proposed 

change requiring the implementation and 

maintenance of a Cyber Security Plan does 

not alter the plant configuration, require new 

plant equipment to be installed, alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any 

accident initiators, or affect the function of 

plant systems or the manner in which 

systems are operated, maintained, modified, 

tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the inclusion of the Cyber 

Security Plan as a part of the facility’s other 

physical protection programs specified in the 

facility’s operating license has no impact on 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change incorporates a new 

requirement, in the Operating License, to 

implement and maintain a cyber security 

plan as part of the facility’s overall program 

for physical protection. The creation of the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident requires creating one or more new 

accident precursors. New accident precursors 

may be created by modifications of the 

plant’s configuration, including changes in 

the allowable modes of operation. The Cyber 

Security Plan itself does not require any 

plant modifications, nor does the Cyber 

Security Plan affect the control parameters 

governing unit operation or the response of 

plant equipment to a transient condition. 

Because the proposed change does not 

change or introduce any new equipment, 

modes of system operation, or failure 

mechanisms, no new accident precursors are 

created. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change incorporates a new 

requirement, in the Operating License, to 

implement and maintain a cyber security 

plan as part of the facility’s overall program 

for physical protection. Plant safety margins 

are established through limiting Conditions 

for Operation, Limiting Safety System 

Settings, and Safety limits specified in the 

Technical Specifications. Because the Cyber 

Security Plan itself does not require any 

plant modifications and does not alter the 

operation of plant equipment, the proposed 

change does not change established safety 

margins. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edward I. Hatch 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia; 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama; 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia. 

Date of amendment request: July 16, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The license 

amendment request (LAR) proposes a 

revision to the Renewed Facility 

Operating License (FOL) to require the 

license to fully implement and maintain 

in effect all provisions of a Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

cyber security plan (CSP). The LAR was 

submitted pursuant to Section 73.54 of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) which requires 

licensees currently licensed to operate a 

nuclear power plant under 10 CFR Part 

50 to submit a CSP for NRC review and 

approval. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below. 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No 

The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally 

conforms to the template provided in 

[Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 08–09, 

Revision 6, and provides a description of 

how the requirements of § 73.54 will be 

implemented at Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle. 

[ * * *]. Accordingly, the SNC Cyber 

Security Plan establishes the licensing basis 

for the cyber security program for Hatch, 

Farley, and Vogtle sites. The SNC Cyber 

Security Plan provides high assurance that 

nuclear power plant digital computer and 

communication systems and networks 

associated with the following are adequately 

protected against cyber attacks up to and 

including the design basis threat: 

1. Safety-related and important-to-safety 

functions; 

2. Security functions; 

3. Emergency preparedness functions, 

including offsite communications; and 

4. Support systems and equipment which, 

if compromised, would adversely impact 

safety, security, or emergency preparedness 

functions. These systems include, in part, all 

non-safety related balance of plant 

equipment which if compromised, could 

result in a reactor scram or actuation of a 

safety-related system and therefore, impact 

reactivity. 

The SNC Cyber Security Plan itself does 

not require any plant modifications. 

However, the plan describes appropriate 

configuration management requirements to 

assure plant modifications involving digital 

computer systems are reviewed to provide 

adequate protection against cyber attacks, up 

to and including the design basis threat as 

defined in § 73.1. The proposed change does 

not alter the plant configuration, involve the 

installation of new plant equipment, alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any new 

initiators, or affect the function of plant 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. The SNC Cyber Security Plan is 

designed to provide high assurance that the 

systems within the scope of § 73.54 are 

protected from cyber attacks and does not 

impact the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

In addition, the proposed change modifies 

the existing FOL for each SNC-operated 

facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber 

Security Plan into the existing condition for 

physical protection. This change is 

administrative in nature and does not impact 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No 

The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally 

conforms to the template provided in NEI 

08–09, Revision 6. [ * * * ]. Accordingly, the 

SNC Cyber Security Plan provides high 

assurance that digital computer and 

communication systems and networks 

associated with the following are adequately 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20382 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

protected against cyber attacks up to and 

including the design basis threat: 

1. Safety-related and important-to-safety 

functions; 

2. Security functions; 

3. Emergency preparedness functions, 

including offsite communications; and, 

4. Support systems and equipment which, 

if compromised, would adversely impact 

safety, security, or emergency preparedness 

functions. These systems include, in part, all 

non-safety related balance of plant 

equipment which if compromised, could 

result in a reactor scram or actuation of a 

safety-related system and therefore, impact 

reactivity. 

The proposed SNC Cyber Security Plan 

does not alter plant configuration, install new 

plant equipment, alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 

function of plant systems or the manner in 

which systems are operated, maintained, 

tested, or inspected. The proposed SNC 

Cyber Security Plan includes appropriate 

configuration management controls to assure 

modifications do not introduce vulnerability 

to cyber attacks. The SNC Cyber Security 

Plan provides high assurance that the 

systems within the scope of § 73.54 are 

adequately protected from cyber attacks. 

Accordingly, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

In addition, the proposed change modifies 

the existing FOL for each SNC-operated 

facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber 

Security Plan by reference. This change is 

administrative in nature and does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The SNC Cyber Security Plan generally 

conforms to the template provided by NEI 

08–09, Revision 6, and provides a description 

of how the requirements of § 73.54 will be 

implemented at Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle. 

[ * * * ]. Accordingly, the SNC Cyber 

Security Plan establishes the licensing basis 

for the cyber security program for Hatch, 

Farley, and Vogtle sites. The SNC Cyber 

Security Plan provides high assurance that 

nuclear power plant digital computer and 

communication systems and networks 

associated with the following are adequately 

protected against cyber attacks up to and 

including the design basis threat: 

1. Safety-related and important-to-safety 

functions; 

2. Security functions; 

3. Emergency preparedness functions, 

including offsite communications; and 

4. Support systems and equipment which, 

if compromised, would adversely impact 

safety, security, or emergency preparedness 

functions. These systems include, in part, all 

non-safety related balance of plant 

equipment which if compromised, could 

result in a reactor scram or actuation of a 

safety-related system and therefore, impact 

reactivity. 

The proposed SNC Cyber Security Plan 

does not alter plant configuration, install new 

plant equipment, alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 

function of plant systems or the manner in 

which systems are operated, maintained, 

tested, or inspected. Plant safety margins are 

established through Limiting Conditions for 

Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings 

and Safety Limits specified in the Technical 

Specifications. Because there is no change to 

these established safety margins, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

In addition, the proposed change modifies 

the existing FOL for each SNC-operated 

facility to incorporate the SNC Cyber 

Security Plan by reference. This change is 

administrative in nature and does not involve 

a reduction in margin of safety. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Arthur H. 

Domby, Troutman Sanders Nations 

Bank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree 

Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308– 

2216. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Will County, 

Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 

and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

Docket No. 50–395, South Carolina 

Public Service Authority, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit 

1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edward I. Hatch 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI). 

B. Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene, any 

potential party who believes access to 

SUNSI is necessary to respond to this 

notice may request such access. A 

‘‘potential party’’ is any person who 

intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 

submitted later than 10 days after 

publication will not be considered 

absent a showing of good cause for the 

late filing, addressing why the request 

could not have been filed earlier. 

C. The requestor shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20383 

1While 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. 

2Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 

be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline 

for the receipt of the written access request. 

3Requestors 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. 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 

and provide a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for Hearings, 

Enforcement and Administration, Office 

of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The expedited delivery or 

courier mail address for both offices is: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1

The request must include the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice; 

(2) The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the action 

identified in C.(1); 

(3) The identity of the individual or 

entity requesting access to SUNSI and 

the requestor’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention. 

D. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

C.(3) the NRC staff will determine 

within 10 days of receipt of the request 

whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requestor has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

E. If the NRC staff determines that the 

requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) 

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requestor in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requestor may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access to 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

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

I. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of April 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN

THIS PROCEEDING

Day Event/Activity 

0 ....................... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and 

opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including 

order with instructions for access requests. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20384 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN

THIS PROCEEDING—Continued 

Day Event/Activity 

10 ..................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) 

with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing 

the need for the information in order for the potential 

party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory 

proceeding. 

60 ..................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to 

SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 

requestor/petitioner reply). 

20 ..................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs 

the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the 

request for access provides a reasonable basis to 

believe standing can be established and shows need 

for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the 

proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for 

SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins 

document processing (preparation of redactions or 

review of redacted documents). 

25 ..................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial 

of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative 

Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If 

NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for 

any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the 

release of the information to file a motion seeking a 

ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ..................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC 

staff determination(s). 

40 ..................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for 

SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order 

and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for 

SUNSI. 

A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other 

designated officer decision on motion for protective 

order for access to sensitive information (including 

schedule for providing access and submission of 

contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. 

Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision 

issuing the protective order. 

A + 28 ............... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if 

more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s 

receipt of (or access to) the information and the 

deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by 

that later deadline. 

A + 53 ............... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose 

development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A + 60 ............... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 ............ Decision on contention admission. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20385 

[FR Doc. 2011–8453 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0006] 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATE: Weeks of April 11, 18, 25, May 2, 

9, 16, 23, 30, June 6, 13, 2011. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of April 11, 2011 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of April 11, 2011. 

Week of April 18, 2011—Tentative 

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 

9 a.m. Briefing on Source Security

Part 37 Rulemaking—Physical 

Protection of Byproduct Material 

(Public Meeting). (Contact: Merri 

Horn, 301–415–8126). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of April 25, 2011—Tentative 

Thursday, April 28, 2011 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Status of NRC 

Response to Events in Japan and 

Briefing on Station Blackout (Public 

Meeting). (Contact: George Wilson, 

301–415–1711). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 2, 2011—Tentative 

Tuesday, May 3, 2011 

9 a.m. Information Briefing on 

Emergency Preparedness (Public 

Meeting). (Contact: Robert Kahler, 

301–415–7528). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 9, 2011—Tentative 

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Progress of 

the Task Force Review of NRC 

Processes and Regulations 

Following the Events in Japan 

(Public Meeting). (Contact: Nathan 

Sanfilippo, 301–415–3951). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov 

Week of May 16, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of May 16, 2011. 

Week of May 23, 2011—Tentative 

Friday, May 27, 2011 

9 a.m. Briefing on Results of the 

Agency Action Review Meeting 

(AARM) (Public Meeting). (Contact: 

Rani Franovich, 301–415–1868). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 30, 2011—Tentative 

Thursday, June 2, 2011 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital 

and Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) (Public Meeting) 

(Contact: Susan Salter, 301–492– 

2206). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.go. 

Week of June 6, 2011—Tentative 

Monday, June 6, 2011 

10 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) (Public Meeting). (Contact: 

Tanny Santos, 301–415–7270). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov 

Week of June 13, 2011—Tentative 

Thursday, June 16, 2011 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Progress of 

the Task Force Review of NRC 

Processes and Regulations 

Following Events in Japan (Public 

Meeting). (Contact: Nathan 

Sanfilippo, 301–415–3951.) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov. *The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Bill 

Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits 

Branch, at 301–415–6200, 301–415– 

2100, or by e-mail at william.dosch@

nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to darlene.wright@

nrc.gov 

Dated: April 7, 2011. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8893 Filed 4–8–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology; Notice of 

Meeting: Partially Closed Meeting of 

the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology 

ACTION: Public Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and summary agenda for a 

partially closed meeting of the 

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology (PCAST), and 

describes the functions of the Council. 

Notice of this meeting is required under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 

DATES: May 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Marriott Metro Center, 775 12th 

Street, NW., Ballroom Salon A, 

Washington, DC. 

Type of Meeting: Open and Closed. 

Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The 

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology (PCAST) is 

scheduled to meet in open session on 

May 19, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

Open Portion of Meeting: During this 

open meeting, PCAST is tentatively 

scheduled to hear presentations on the 

U.S. patent system. PCAST members 

will also discuss reports they are 

developing on the topics of advanced 

manufacturing. Additional information 

and the agenda will be posted at the 

PCAST Web site at: http:// 

whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. 

Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST 

may hold a closed meeting of 

approximately 1 hour with the President 

on May 19, 2011, which must take place 

in the White House for the President’s 

scheduling convenience and to maintain 

Secret Service protection. This meeting 

will be closed to the public because 

such portion of the meeting is likely to 

disclose matters that are to be kept 

secret in the interest of national defense 

or foreign policy under 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(1). 

Public Comments: It is the policy of 

the PCAST to accept written public 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES