Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 76041 

Automation, Inc., and Seaton 

Corporation working on-site at the 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina location 

of Dell Products LP, Winston-Salem 

(WS–1) Division. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–72,575 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Dell Products LP, WinstonSalem (WS–1) Division, including on-site 

leased workers of Adecco, Spherion, Patriot 

Staffing, Manpower, TEKsystems, APN, 

ICONMA, Staffing Solutions, South East, 

Omni Resources and Recovery, 

SecurAmerica, LLC, Industrial Distribution 

Group (IDG), LLC, ARM Automation, Inc., 

and Seaton Corporation, Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on or 

after October 13, 2008 through March 1, 

2012, and all workers in the group threatened 

with total or partial separation from 

employment on date of certification through 

two years from the date of certification, are 

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 

under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act 

of 1974, as amended. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

November 2010. 

Michael W. Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30543 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–70,784] 

Chrysler Group LLC Formerly Known 

as Chrysler LLC Kenosha Engine Plant 

Including On-Site Leased Workers 

From Caravan Knight Facilities 

Management LLC, Syncreon, Mahar 

Tool Supply Company, Waste 

Management, Quaker Chemical 

Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S 

Secure Solutions, Crassociates, Inc., 

CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, 

Prodriver Leasing Systems, Inc., 

Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis 

Kenosha, WI; Amended Certification 

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor 

issued a Certification of Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance on August 13, 2010, 

applicable to workers of Chrysler Group, 

LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, 

Kenosha Engine Plant, Kenosha, 

Wisconsin (subject firm). The 

Department’s notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 5, 2009 (74 57340). The 

certification applicable to workers of the 

subject firm was amended May 10, 2010 

to include on-site leased workers from 

Caravan Knight Facilities Management 

and on August 13, 2010 to include onsite leased workers from Syncreon. The 

Department’s notices of amended 

certification were published in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 2010 (75 

FR 34170) and August 30, 2010 (75 FR 

52982), respectively. 

The workers at the subject firm were 

engaged in employment related to the 

production of V–6 automobile engines. 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. 

The company reports that workers 

leased from not only Caravan Knight 

Facilities Management LLC and 

Syncreon, but also Mahar Tool Supply 

Company, Waste Management, Quaker 

Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, 

Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, 

CRAssociates, Inc., CES, Inc., Evans 

Distribution Systems, ProDriver Leasing 

Systems, Inc., Teksystems, Inc., and 

Arcadis, Kenosha, Wisconsin were 

employed on-site at the Kenosha, 

Wisconsin location of Chrysler Group, 

LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, 

Kenosha Engine Plant. The Department 

has determined that these workers were 

sufficiently under the control of the 

subject firm to be considered leased 

workers. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include workers leased 

from Mahar Tool Supply Company, 

Waste Management, Quaker Chemical 

Corporation, K+S Services, Inc., G4S 

Secure Solutions, CRAssociates, Inc., 

CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, 

ProDriver Leasing Systems, Inc., 

Teksystems, Inc., and Arcadis working 

on-site at the Kenosha, Wisconsin 

location of Chrysler Group, LLC, 

formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, 

Kenosha Engine Plant. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–70,784 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Chrysler Group, LLC, 

formerly known as Chrysler, LLC, Kenosha 

Engine Plant, including on-site leased 

workers of Caravan Knight Facilities 

Management LLC, Syncreon, Mahar Tool 

Supply Company, Waste Management, 

Quaker Chemical Corporation, K+S Services, 

Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, CRAssociates, 

Inc., CES, Inc., Evans Distribution Systems, 

ProDriver Leasing Systems, Inc., Teksystems, 

Inc., and Arcadis, Kenosha, Wisconsin, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after May 27, 2008, 

through September 2, 2011, and all workers 

in the group threatened with total or partial 

separation from employment on the date of 

certification through two years from the date 

of certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 

Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

November 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30540 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0364] 

Notice; Applications and Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses 

Involving Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Considerations and 

Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Order 

Imposing Procedures for Access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

I. Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

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

Commission (the Commission, NRC, or 

NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The 

Act requires the Commission publish 

notice of any amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued and grants the 

Commission the authority to issue and 

make immediately effective any 

amendment to an operating license 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This notice includes notices of 

amendments containing sensitive 

unclassified non-safeguards information 

(SUNSI). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments To Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means 

that operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) Involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 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/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.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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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 NRCissued ID certificate). Based upon this 

information, the Secretary will establish 

an electronic docket for the hearing in 

this proceeding if the Secretary has not 

already established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. 

Further information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive an ID certificate 

before a hearing request/petition to 

intervene is filed so that they can obtain 

access to the document via the E-Filing 

system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E–Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

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

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E–Filing, may require a 

participant or party to use E–Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E–Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, or the presiding 

officer. Participants are requested not to 

include personal privacy information, 

such as social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

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

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

amendment action, see the application 

for amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

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

adams.html. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference 

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

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

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Date of amendment request: July 27, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

license amendment request includes 

three parts: (1) The proposed Fermi 2 

Cyber Security Plan, (2) an 

Implementation Schedule, and (3) a 

proposed sentence to be added to the 

existing Facility Operating License 

Physical Protection license condition to 

require Fermi 2 to fully implement and 

maintain in effect all provisions of the 

Commission approved Cyber Security 

Plan as required by Title 10 of the Code 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 

73.54. 

A Federal Register notice on March 

27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued the final 

rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The 

regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ‘‘Protection 

of digital computer and communication 

systems and networks,’’ establish the 

requirements for a cyber security 

program. This regulation specifically 

requires each licensee currently 

licensed to operate a nuclear power 

plant under 10 CFR part 50 to submit a 

cyber security plan that satisfies the 

requirements of the Rule. Each 

submittal must include a proposed 

implementation schedule and 

implementation of the licensee’s cyber 

security program must be consistent 

with approved schedule. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

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 Commissionapproved PNP Cyber Security Plan as 

required by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 

73.54. Federal Register notice dated 

March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926), issued 

the final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 

73. The regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, 

‘‘Protection of digital computer and 

communication systems and networks,’’ 

establish the requirements for a Cyber 

Security Program. This regulation 

specifically requires each licensee 

currently licensed to operate a nuclear 

power plant under part 50 to submit a 

Cyber Security Plan that satisfies the 

requirements of the Rule. The regulation 

also requires that each submittal include 

a proposed implementation schedule, 

and the implementation of the licensee’s 

Cyber Security Program must be 

consistent with the approved schedule. 

The background for this application is 

addressed by the NRC’s Notice of 

Availability, published on March 27, 

2009 (74 FR 13926). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

As required by 10 CFR 73.54 ENO has 

submitted a Cyber Security Plan for NRC 

review and approval for PNP. The PNP Cyber 

Security Plan does not alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 

function of the plant systems or the manner 

in which systems are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. The PNP 

Cyber Security Plan does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the structures, 

systems, and components relied upon to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

information (SUNSI). The licensee 

proposed an amendment to the Facility 

Operating Licenses (FOL) for Surry 

Units 1 and 2. In the same amendment 

request letter, sent under Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., letterhead, 

Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; 

Kewaunee Power Station; and Surry 

Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Units 1 

and 2, submitted amendment requests 

pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. 

This notice only addresses the 

application as it pertains to Surry Units 

1 and 2. The licensee requested NRC 

approval of the Surry Units 1 and 2 

Cyber Security Plan, provided a 

proposed implementation schedule, and 

proposed to add a sentence to License 

Condition 3.J, ‘‘Physical Protection,’’ of 

Surry Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating 

License DPR–32 and DPR–37 that would 

affirm when the licensee would fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the Cyber Security Plan. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), 

the licensee has provided its analysis of 

the issue of no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC). The NRC staff 

reviewed the licensee’s NSHC analysis 

against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). 

The NRC staff’s review is presented 

below. 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Plan establishes the licensing basis for 

the Cyber Security Program for the sites. The 

Plan establishes how to achieve high 

assurance that specified nuclear power plant 

digital computer and communication 

systems, networks and functions are 

adequately protected against cyber attacks up 

to and including the design basis threat. 

Part one of the proposed changes is 

designed to achieve high assurance that the 

systems are protected from cyber attacks. The 

Plan describes how plant modifications that 

involve digital computer systems are 

reviewed to provide high assurance of 

adequate protection against cyber attacks, up 

to and including the design basis threat. The 

proposed change does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The first part of the proposed change is 

designed to achieve high assurance that the 

systems within the scope of the requirement 

are protected from cyber attacks and has no 

impact on the probability or consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed change implements a Cyber 

Security Plan as a requirement not previously 

formally addressed. As such, the proposed 

Plan provides a significant enhancement to 

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 NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, 

Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Florida 

City, Florida 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 

Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry 

County, Virginia 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI). 

B. Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene, any 

potential party who believes access to 

SUNSI is necessary to respond to this 

notice may request such access. A 

‘‘potential party’’ is any person who 

intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) 2.309. Requests for access to 

SUNSI submitted later than 10 days 

after publication will not be considered 

absent a showing of good cause for the 

late filing, addressing why the request 

could not have been filed earlier. 

C. The requestor shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or the Commission), Washington, DC 

20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings 

and Adjudications Staff, and provide a 

copy to the Associate General Counsel 

for Hearings, Enforcement and 

Administration, Office of the General 

Counsel, Washington, DC 20555–0001. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 76049 

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. 

The expedited delivery or courier mail 

address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. The e-mail address for the Office 

of the Secretary and the Office of the 

General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1

The request must include the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice; 

(2) The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the action 

identified in C.(1); 

(3) The identity of the individual or 

entity requesting access to SUNSI and 

the requestor’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly-available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention; 

D. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

C.(3) the NRC staff will determine 

within 10 days of receipt of the request 

whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requestor has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

E. If the NRC staff determines that the 

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

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requestor in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requestor may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

F. Filing of Contentions. Any 

contentions in these proceedings that 

are based upon the information received 

as a result of the request made for 

SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no 

later than 25 days after the requestor is 

granted access to that information. 

However, if more than 25 days remain 

between the date the petitioner is 

granted access to the information and 

the deadline for filing all other 

contentions (as established in the notice 

of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 

the petitioner may file its SUNSI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

G. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff either after 

a determination on standing and need 

for access, or after a determination on 

trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC 

staff shall immediately notify the 

requestor in writing, briefly stating the 

reason or reasons for the denial. 

(2) The requestor may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination by 

filing a challenge within 5 days of 

receipt of that determination with: (a) 

the presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

H. Review of Grants of Access. A 

party other than the requestor may 

challenge an NRC staff determination 

granting access to SUNSI whose release 

would harm that party’s interest 

independent of the proceeding. Such a 

challenge must be filed with the Chief 

Administrative Judge within 5 days of 

the notification by the NRC staff of its 

grant of access. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.3

I. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It Is So Ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of December 2010. 

For the Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—General Target 

Schedule for Processing and Resolving 

Requests for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information in this Proceeding 

Day Event/Activity 

0 ........................................ Publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order 

with instructions for access requests. 

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). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

Day Event/Activity 

20 ...................................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request 

for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC 

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

the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC 

staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 040–08502, 040–09073, 030– 

38260; NRC–2010–0300] 

Notice of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Consent to Indirect 

Change of Control and Issuance of 

License Amendment to Materials 

License SUA–1341, SUA–1596, and 49– 

29384–01 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of approval of indirect 

change of control and issuance of 

license amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

C. Linton, Project Manager, Uranium 

Recovery Licensing Branch, 

Decommissioning and Uranium 

Recovery Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 

(301) 415–7777; fax number: (301) 415– 

5369; e-mail: ron.linton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is providing notice 

of NRC consent to the indirect change 

of control and issuance of license 

amendments to Materials License 

Numbers SUA–1341, SUA–1569, and 

49–29384–01. Materials License SUA– 

1341 authorizes Uranium One USA, 

Inc., to possess uranium and byproduct 

material at its Irigaray and Christensen 

Ranch in situ recovery (ISR) project in 

Johnson and Campbell Counties, 

Wyoming. The project is currently in 

operating status, but is not producing 

uranium at this time. Materials License 

SUA–1569 authorizes Uranium One 

Americas, Inc., to possess uranium and 

byproduct material at its Moore Ranch 

ISR Project in Campbell County, 

Wyoming. The project was licensed on 

September 30, 2010, and is not 

producing uranium at this time. 

Materials License 49–29384–01 

authorizes Uranium One Americas, Inc. 

to possess byproduct material— 

specifically, sealed source of hydrogen3—in an amount not to exceed three (3) 

Curies (Ci) per source and 12 Ci in total 

for well logging. 

By letter dated July 20, 2010, Uranium 

One, Inc., Uranium One USA, Inc. and 

Uranium One Americas, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Uranium One’’) submitted 

an application and license amendment 

request for approval of an indirect 

change of control of Uranium One USA, 

Inc.’s Materials License SUA–1341 for 

its Irigaray and Christensen Ranch 

Project (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

accession number ML102090404). The 

July 20, 2010 submittal also referenced 

Uranium One’s materials license 

applications for Moore Ranch Project 

(Docket No. 40–9073), Jab & Antelope 

Project (Docket No. 40–9079), and the 

Ludeman Project (Docket No. 40–9095) 

as being affected by the change of 

control. Subsequently, Materials License 

SUA–1596 was issued to Uranium One 

Americas, Inc. for its Moore Ranch 

Project on September 30, 2010. In a 

separate submittal dated June 23, 2010 

(ML102100530), Uranium One 

submitted notification of an indirect 

change of control regarding its Materials 

License 49–29384–01. NRC has 

determined that the application 

constitutes a request for a license 

transfer and is collectively treating the 

July 20, 2010, and June 23, 2010, 

submittals as an application for the 

change of control of NRC licenses SUA– 

1341, SUA–1596 and 49–29384–01. 

The indirect change of control is a 

result of a share purchase transaction, 

wherein JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) 

(a Russian corporation) and its wholly 

owned subsidiaries Effective Energy 

N.V. (a Dutch limited liability company) 

and Uranium Mining Company (a 

Russian corporation), will acquire no 

less than 51 percent of Uranium One, 

Inc.’s (a Canadian Corporation) common 

shares. Uranium One, Inc. is the parent 

company of Uranium One USA, Inc. (a 

Delaware corporation) and Uranium 

One Americas, Inc. (a Nevada 

corporation), both NRC licensees. 

ARMZ is owned by JSC 

Atomenergoprom and JSC 

Atomenergoprom’s wholly owned 

subsidiary JSC TVEL. JSC 

Atomenergoprom is a wholly owned 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES