[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68831-68840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28129]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0335]


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

I. Background

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

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s)

[[Page 68832]]

whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a 
hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the 
amendment to the subject facility operating license. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. If a request for a hearing or petition for 
leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7afa2a6b5aea9a0e9a3a8a4aca2b387a9b5a4e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec6cbcfdcc7c0c980cac1cdc5cbdaeec0dccd80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the 
participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign 
documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which 
it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant 
will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances 
in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already 
holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this 
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the 
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established 
an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at

[[Page 68833]]

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered 
complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-
Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to 
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due 
date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps 
the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming 
receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail 
notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the 
General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the 
Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the 
filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. 
Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or 
representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate 
before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they 
can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bef3edf6fa90ecdbcdd1cbccdddbfed0ccdd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3fee0fbf79de1d6c0dcc6c1d0d6f3ddc1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have 
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9feffbedb1edfaecf0eaedfcfadff1edfcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f6f7b6d316d7a6c706a6d7c7a5f716d7c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would approve the proposed Cyber Security Plan and 
implementation schedule and would revise the existing Facility 
Operating License (FOL) Physical Protection License Condition to 
require the licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all 
provisions of the Commission-approved Cyber Security Plan as required 
by 10 CFR 73.54.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License (FOL) to implement and maintain a Cyber 
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical 
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the FOL itself 
does not involve any modifications to the safety-related structures, 
systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, the Cyber Security Plan 
describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented 
to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and 
including the design basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving 
high assurance that the facility's digital computer and 
communications systems and networks are protected from cyber 
attacks. The addition of the Cyber Security Plan to the Physical 
Security Plan will not alter previously evaluated Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) design basis accident analysis 
assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the function of 
the plant safety-related SSCs as to how they are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?

    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the FOL do not result in the 
need of any new or different FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] 
design basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment 
that could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new 
equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.

[[Page 68834]]

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010, as supplemented by a 
letter dated August 5, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee 
proposed an amendment to the Facility Operating License for KPS. In the 
same amendment request letter, sent under Dominion Resources Services, 
Inc. letterhead, Millstone Power Station Units 2 and 3; North Anna 
Power Station Units 1 and 2; and Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 
submitted amendment requests pertaining to their Cyber Security Plans. 
This notice only addresses the application as it pertains to KPS. The 
licensee requested NRC approval of the KPS Cyber Security Plan, 
provided a proposed implementation schedule, and proposed to add a 
sentence to License Condition 2.C.(4), ``Physical Protection,'' of KPS 
Facility Operating License (FOL) DPR-43 that would affirm when the 
licensee would fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of 
the Cyber Security Plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's NHSC analysis and 
has prepared its own as follows:

Criterion 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The Plan establishes the licensing basis for the Cyber Security 
Program for the Sites. The Plan establishes how to achieve high 
assurance that specified nuclear power plant digital computer and 
communication systems, networks and functions are adequately 
protected against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis 
threat.
    Part one of the proposed changes is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems are protected from cyber attacks. The 
Plan describes how plant modifications that involve digital computer 
systems are reviewed to provide high assurance of adequate 
protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design 
basis threat. The proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The first part of the proposed 
change is designed to achieve high assurance that the systems within 
the scope of the requirement are protected from cyber attacks and 
has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed change implements a Cyber 
Security Plan as a requirement not previously formally addressed. As 
such, the proposed Plan provides a significant enhancement to cyber 
security where no requirement existed before.
    The second part of the proposed changes adds a sentence to the 
existing facility license conditions for Physical Protection. These 
changes are administrative and have no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
structures, systems and components (SSCs) are protected from cyber 
attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of a plan 
in the FOL do not result in the need of any new or different design 
basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that 
could create a new or different kind of accident, and no new 
equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed

[[Page 68835]]

amendment to the Facility operating License (FOL) includes: (1) The 
proposed Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Unit No. 1 Cyber Security 
Plan, (2) an implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be 
added to the existing FOL Physical Protection license condition 2.E to 
require the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, the licensee) 
to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission approved cyber plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. Federal 
Register notice issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 73. The 
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and 
communication systems and networks,'' establish the requirements for a 
cyber security program. This regulation specifically requires each 
licensee currently licensed to operate a nuclear power plant under 10 
CFR Part 50 to submit a cyber security plan that satisfies the 
requirements of the rule. Each submittal must include a proposed 
implementation schedule and implementation of the licensee's cyber 
security program must be consistent with the approved schedule. The 
background for this application is addressed by the NRC's Notice of 
Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, Power 
Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 
13926).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC 
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the 
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan 
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program 
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve high assurance 
that nuclear power plant digital computer and communication systems 
and networks associated with the following are adequately protected 
against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions,
    2. Security functions,
    3. Emergency preparedness functions including offsite 
communications, and
    4. Support systems and equipment which if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions.
    Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are 
protected from cyber attacks. The Plan itself does not require any 
plant modifications. However, the Plan does describe how plant 
modifications which involve digital computer systems are reviewed to 
provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks, 
up to and including the design basis threat as defined in the rule. 
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, require 
new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, affect the function of plant 
systems, or affect the manner in which systems are operated. The 
first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are 
protected from cyber attacks and has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license 
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative and have no impact on the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC 
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the 
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan 
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program 
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve high assurance 
that nuclear power plant digital computer and communication systems 
and networks associated with the following are adequately protected 
against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions,
    2. Security functions,
    3. Emergency preparedness functions including offsite 
communications, and
    4. Support systems and equipment which if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions.
    Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are 
protected from cyber attacks. The Plan itself does not require any 
plant modifications. However, the Plan does describe how plant 
modifications which involve digital computer systems are reviewed to 
provide high assurance of adequate protection against cyber attacks, 
up to and including the design basis threat defined in the rule. The 
proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, require new 
plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, affect the function of plant 
systems, or affect the manner in which systems are operated. The 
first part of the proposed change is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are 
protected from cyber attacks and does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license 
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety

    The proposed change is required by 10 CFR 73.54 and includes 
three parts. The first part is the submittal of the Plan for NRC 
review and approval. The Plan provides a description of how the 
requirements of the rule will be implemented at the PNPP. The Plan 
establishes the licensing basis for the FENOC cyber security program 
for the PNPP. The Plan establishes how to achieve high assurance 
that nuclear power plant digital computer and communication systems 
and networks associated with the following are adequately protected 
against cyber attacks up to and including the design basis threat:
    1. Safety-related and important-to-safety functions,
    2. Security functions,
    3. Emergency preparedness functions including offsite 
communications, and
    4. Support systems and equipment which if compromised, would 
adversely impact safety, security, or emergency preparedness 
functions.
    Part one of the proposed change is designed to achieve high 
assurance that the systems within the scope of the rule are 
protected from cyber attacks. Plant safety margins are established 
through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System 
Settings and Safety limits specified in the Technical 
Specifications, methods of evaluation that establish design basis or 
change Updated Final Safety Analysis. Because there is no change to 
these established safety margins, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The second part of the proposed change is an implementation 
schedule. The third part adds a sentence to the existing FOL license 
condition 2.E for Physical Protection. Both of these changes are 
administrative and do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 68836]]

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The licensee 
proposes an amendment to the Facility Operating License for the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center. The licensee requests NRC approval of the NextEra 
Energy Duane Arnold Cyber Security Plan, provides an implementation 
schedule, and adds a sentence to the existing Operation License 
Physical Protection license condition to require NextEra Energy Duane 
Arnold to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission-approved Cyber Security Plan.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC). The licensee's NSHC analysis, addressing each 
issue described above, is reproduced below:

Criterion 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain a Cyber 
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical 
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility 
Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the 
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the 
Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 
are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber 
attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat, 
thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from 
cyber attacks. The Cyber Security Plan will not alter previously 
evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) design basis accident 
analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the 
function of the plant safety-related SSCs as to how they are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of a plan in the Facility Operating License 
do not result in the need for any new or different FSAR design basis 
accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that could 
create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment 
failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, 
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a 
result of this proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
does not create a possibility for an accident of a new or different 
type than those previously evaluated.

Criterion 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. R.E. Helfrich, Florida Power & Light 
Company, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: July 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would approve the proposed Cyber Security Plan and 
implementation schedule and would revise the existing Facility 
Operating License Physical Protection License Condition to require the 
licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of 
the Commission-approved Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 
73.54.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain the Cyber 
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical 
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility 
Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the 
safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Rather, 
the Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 
73.54 are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate 
cyber attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack 
threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from 
cyber attacks. The implementation and incorporation of the Cyber 
Security Plan into the Facility Operating License will not alter 
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs 
as to how they are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation

[[Page 68837]]

of 10 CFR 73.54 and the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the 
Facility Operating License do not result in the need of any new or 
different UFSAR design basis accident analysis. It does not 
introduce new equipment that could create a new or different kind of 
accident, and no new equipment failure modes are created. As a 
result, no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed 
amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated.
    The amendment provides assurance that safety-related SSCs are 
protected from cyber attacks. The proposed amendment would not 
introduce any new uncertainties or change any existing uncertainties 
associated with any safety limit. The proposed amendment would have 
no impact on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the 
above considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation to the public.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: This amendments request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would approve the STP Nuclear Operating Company's request 
for approval of South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Cyber Security Plan 
in accordance with 10 CFR 73.54. The amendments would also revise 
Section 2.F of the Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) numbered NPF-76 
and NPF-80 to incorporate the requirement to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved cyber 
security plan. The requirements of 10 CFR 73.54, ``Protection of 
digital computer and communication systems and networks,'' establish 
the requirements for a cyber security program.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    The proposed change incorporates a new requirement in the FOL to 
implement and maintain the Cyber Security Plan as part of the 
facility's overall program for physical protection. Inclusion of the 
Cyber Security Plan in the FOL itself does not involve any 
modifications to the safety related structures, systems or 
components (SSCs). Rather, the Cyber Security Plan describes how the 
requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 are to be implemented to identify, 
evaluate, and mitigate cyber attacks up to and including the design 
basis cyber attack threat, thereby achieving high assurance that the 
facility's digital computer and communications systems and networks 
are protected from cyber attacks. The implementation and 
incorporation of the Cyber Security Plan into the FOL will not alter 
previously evaluated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
design basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident 
initiators, or affect the function of the plant safety related SSCs 
as to how they are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the FOL do not 
result in the need of any new or different UFSAR design basis 
accident analysis. It does not introduce new equipment that could 
create a new or different kind of accident, and no new equipment 
failure modes are created. As a result, no new accident scenarios, 
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a 
result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: August 12, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would approve the Union Electric Company's request for 
approval of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Cyber Security Plan in 
accordance with 10 CFR 73.54. The amendments would also revise Section 
2.E of the Facility Operating License (FOL) numbered NPF-30 to 
incorporate the provisions to implement and maintain in effect all 
provisions of the Commission-approved cyber security plan. The 
requirements of 10

[[Page 68838]]

CFR 73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and communication systems 
and networks,'' establish the requirements for a cyber security 
program.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated

    The proposed change incorporates a new requirement in the 
Facility Operating License to implement and maintain the Cyber 
Security Plan as part of the facility's overall program for physical 
protection. Inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility 
Operating License itself does not involve any modifications to the 
safety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs). Rather, the 
Cyber Security Plan describes how the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54 
are to be implemented to identify, evaluate, and mitigate cyber 
attacks up to and including the design basis cyber attack threat, 
thereby achieving high assurance that the facility's digital 
computer and communications systems and networks are protected from 
cyber attacks. The implementation and incorporation of the Cyber 
Security Plan into the Facility Operating License will not alter 
previously evaluated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) design 
basis accident analysis assumptions, add any accident initiators, or 
affect the function of the plant safety-related SSCs as to how they 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated

    This proposed amendment provides assurance that safety-related 
SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. Implementation of 10 CFR 
73.54 and the inclusion of the Cyber Security Plan in the Facility 
Operating License do not result in the need of any new or different 
FSAR design basis accident analysis. It does not introduce new 
equipment that could create a new or different kind of accident, and 
no new equipment failure modes are created. As a result, no new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of this proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety

    The margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the 
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant pressure boundary, and containment structure) to 
limit the level of radiation to the public. The proposed amendment 
would not alter the way any safety-related SSC functions and would 
not alter the way the plant is operated. The amendment provides 
assurance that safety-related SSCs are protected from cyber attacks. 
The proposed amendment would not introduce any new uncertainties or 
change any existing uncertainties associated with any safety limit. 
The proposed amendment would have no impact on the structural 
integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, 
or containment structure. Based on the above considerations, the 
proposed amendment would not degrade the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation to 
the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered 
absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the 
request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General 
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the 
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or 
courier mail address for both offices is:

[[Page 68839]]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and 
the Office of the General Counsel are <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="541c3135263d3a337a103b373f3120143a26377a333b22">[email protected]</a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6a9a1a58b878f8a858388928394a6889485c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="367971755b575f5a5553584253447658445518515940">[email protected]</span></a>, respectively.\1\ The request must include the 
following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more 
than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access 
to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions 
(as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 
the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after 
a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall 
immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason 
or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely 
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying 
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions 
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for 
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of November 2010.

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

   Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
                           in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Day                            Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...........................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                               hearing and opportunity to petition for
                               leave to intervene, including order with
                               instructions for access requests.
10..........................  Deadline for submitting requests for
                               access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
                               Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with
                               information: Supporting the standing of a
                               potential party identified by name and
                               address; describing the need for the
                               information in order for the potential
                               party to participate meaningfully in an
                               adjudicatory proceeding.
60..........................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                               intervention containing: (i)
                               Demonstration of standing; (ii) all
                               contentions whose formulation does not
                               require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to
                               petition for intervention; +7 requestor/
                               petitioner reply).

[[Page 68840]]

 
20..........................  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff
                               informs the requestor of the staff's
                               determination whether the request for
                               access provides a reasonable basis to
                               believe standing can be established and
                               shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also
                               informs any party to the proceeding whose
                               interest independent of the proceeding
                               would be harmed by the release of the
                               information.) If NRC staff makes the
                               finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood
                               of standing, NRC staff begins document
                               processing (preparation of redactions or
                               review of redacted documents).
25..........................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                               likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                               requestor/petitioner to file a motion
                               seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC
                               staff's denial of access; NRC staff files
                               copy of access determination with the
                               presiding officer (or Chief
                               Administrative Judge or other designated
                               officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff
                               finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the deadline
                               for any party to the proceeding whose
                               interest independent of the proceeding
                               would be harmed by the release of the
                               information to file a motion seeking a
                               ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant
                               of access.
30..........................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                               reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40..........................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing
                               and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC
                               staff to complete information processing
                               and file motion for Protective Order and
                               draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline
                               for applicant/licensee to file Non-
                               Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI.
A...........................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                               officer or other designated officer
                               decision on motion for protective order
                               for access to sensitive information
                               (including schedule for providing access
                               and submission of contentions) or
                               decision reversing a final adverse
                               determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.......................  Deadline for filing executed Non-
                               Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to
                               SUNSI consistent with decision issuing
                               the protective order.
A + 28......................  Deadline for submission of contentions
                               whose development depends upon access to
                               SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
                               remain between the petitioner's receipt
                               of (or access to) the information and the
                               deadline for filing all other contentions
                               (as established in the notice of hearing
                               or opportunity for hearing), the
                               petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions
                               by that later deadline.
A + 53......................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                               contentions whose development depends
                               upon access to SUNSI.
A + 60......................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                               reply to answers.
> A + 60....................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-28129 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>