Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68831 

Location: Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, 

Taylor Valley (ASPA 131) 

Dates: February 28, 2011 to February 

28, 2016 

Permit Application No. 2011–022. 

2. Applicant: Adam Kustka, Department 

of Earth & Environmental Sciences, 

Rutgers University, 101 Warren 

Street, Newark, NJ 07102. 

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested 

Export from USA, and Introduce Nonindigenous Species into Antarctica. The 

applicant is investigating the role of 

modified circumpolar deep water on 

supplying Fe to the surface ocean and 

how this Fe supply impacts initial CO2

sequestration and how it impacts the 

composition of the phytoplankton 

community assemblage. To trace the fate 

and recycling of organic carbon and Fe 

that has been incorporated into 

phytoplankton, they will use cell lysates 

labeled with the radioisotopes of C or 

Fe. In complementary experiments, 

lysates will also be labeled with the 

stable isotope 13C. These lysates will be 

generated in the university lab using 

cultures of a centric diatom 

(Thhalassiosira weissflogii) and a 

temperate haptophyte (Phaeocystic 

globosa)—species that cannot tolerate 

seawater temperatures in Antarctica. 

The lysates will be shipped from the 

University via New Zealand and used 

onboard the research vessel, Nathaniel 

B. Palmer, in the Ross Sea. Once 

experiments are concluded, the lysates 

will be placed in the radioactive waste 

stream and not released to the 

environment. 

Location: Ross Sea, Antarctica 

Dates: January 1, 2011 to March 1, 2011 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28202 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Permits Issued Under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under 

the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, 

Public Law 95–541. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 

notice of permits issued under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 

This is the required notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 

Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, 

National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 1, 2010 and October 5, 2010, 

the National Science Foundation 

published notices in the Federal 

Register of permit applications received. 

Permits were issued on November 1, 

2010 and November 3, 2010, 

respectively, to: 

Robert W. Sanders ... Permit No. 2011–019. 

Yu-Ping Chin ............ Permit No. 2011–018. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28209 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0335] 

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), 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) 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

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/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 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 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the 

E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68833 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an 

e-mail notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC 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 

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 firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use 

E-Filing if the presiding officer 

subsequently determines that the reason 

for granting the exemption from use of 

E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

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, 

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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

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 NonSafeguards 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: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68839 

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. 

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 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). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued 

Day Event/activity 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0002] 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of November 8, 15, 22, 29, 

December 6, 13, 2010. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of November 8, 2010 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 8, 2010. 

Week of November 15, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 15, 2010. 

Week of November 22, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 22, 2010. 

Week of November 29, 2010—Tentative 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 

1 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1). 

Week of December 6, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of December 6, 2010. 

Week of December 13, 2010—Tentative 

Thursday, December 16, 2010. 

2 p.m. Briefing on Construction 

Reactor Oversight Program (cROP) 

(Public Meeting). (Contact: Aida 

Rivera-Varona, 301–415–4001). 

This meeting will be Webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Angela 

Bolduc, Chief, Employee/Labor 

Relations and Work Life Branch, at 301– 

492–2230, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by 

e-mail at angela.bolduc@nrc.gov. 

Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: November 4, 2010. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28393 Filed 11–5–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Request for a License To Import 

Radioactive Waste 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (b) ‘‘Public 

Notice of Receipt of an Application,’’ 

please take notice that the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has 

received the following request for an 

import license. Copies of the request are 

available electronically through ADAMS 

and can be accessed through the Public 

Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1