Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 69137 

significantly affect plant safety and 

would not significantly affect the 

probability of an accident. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those hazards previously 

analyzed in the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact made by the Commission in 

promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR 

part 73 as discussed in a Federal 

Register notice dated March 27, 2009; 

74 FR 13926. There will be no change 

to radioactive effluents or emissions that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. 

Therefore, no radiological impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action is an extension 

of the compliance deadline and will not 

result in any additional construction or 

major renovation of any buildings or 

structures, nor any ground disturbing 

activities, beyond the security 

improvements previously planned to 

achieve compliance with the new rule. 

No changes in the size of the workforce, 

or in traffic to or around SONGS 2 and 

3, are expected as a result of an 

extension of the compliance deadline. 

Providing the licensee with additional 

time to comply with the revised 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 would not 

alter land use, air quality, and water use 

(quality and quantity) conditions or 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits at SONGS 2 

and 3. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat in 

the vicinity of the plant; threatened, 

endangered, and protected species 

under the Endangered Species Act; and 

essential fish habitat covered by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act would not be 

affected. In addition, historic and 

cultural resources, socioeconomic 

conditions, and minority- and lowincome populations in the vicinity of 

SONGS 2 and 3 would also not be 

affected by this action. Therefore, no 

changes to or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

As previously noted, in promulgating 

its amendments to 10 CFR part 73, the 

Commission prepared an environmental 

assessment of the rule change and 

published a finding of no significant 

impact (10 CFR parts 50, 52, 72, and 73, 

Power Reactor Security Requirements, 

March 27, 2009; 74 FR 13926). Thus, 

through the proposed action, the 

Commission would be granting 

additional time for the licensee to 

comply with regulatory requirements for 

which the Commission has already 

found no significant impact. 

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC 

concludes that there would be no 

significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the extension of the 

implementation date for one element of 

the new requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 

for SONGS 2 and 3. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. Denial of the exemption 

request would result in the licensee 

being in non-compliance with 10 CFR 

73.55(a)(1) and thus, subject to NRC 

enforcement action. The end result, 

however, would still be ultimate 

licensee compliance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, but with 

the added expense to both the NRC and 

the licensee of any enforcement actions. 

The NRC concludes that the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

exemption and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The proposed action does not involve 

the use of any different resources than 

those previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for SONGS 

Units 2 and 3, dated May 12, 1981. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on October 22, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the California State 

official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of the 

California Department of Public Health, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the above 

environmental assessment, which in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), is 

incorporated into this finding of no 

significant impact by reference, the NRC 

concludes that the proposed action 

constitutes an administrative change 

(timing) that would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated August 24, 2010, as supplemented 

by letter dated October 17, 2010. 

Portions of the August 24 and October 

17, 2010, submittals contain safeguards 

and security-related information and, 

accordingly, redacted versions of those 

letters are available for public review in 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), at 

Accession Nos. ML102380401 and 

ML102920691, respectively. These 

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 O– 

1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, November 3, 

2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James R. Hall, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28395 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–366; NRC–2010–0345] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Inc. Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 

No. 2 Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 

CFR), Section 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance 

criteria for emergency core cooling 

systems for light-water nuclear power 

reactors,’’ and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

K, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ for the 

Renewed Facility Operating License No. 

NPF–5, issued to Southern Nuclear 

Company (SNC, the licensee), for 

operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant (HNP), Unit 2, located in Appling 

County, Georgia. In accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, the 

NRC has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in support of this 

exemption. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
69138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would allow 

SNC to use GNF–Ziron (GNF—Global 

Nuclear Fuel), an advanced alloy fuel 

cladding material for boiling-water 

reactors which is similar in composition 

to Zircaloy-2, but contains slightly 

higher iron content than specified in 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials B350 (ASTM B350). The 

proposed action is in accordance with 

the licensee’s application dated May 12, 

2010 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML101340739). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed so that 

SNC can use GNF–Ziron as an advanced 

alloy for fuel rod cladding and other 

assembly structural components at the 

HNP. 

Section 50.46 of 10 CFR and 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix K, make no 

provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a 

material other than zircaloy or 

ZIRLOTM. Since the chemical 

composition of the GNF–Ziron alloy 

differs from the specifications for 

zircaloy or ZIRLOTM, a plant-specific 

exemption is required to allow the use 

of the GNF–Ziron alloy as a cladding 

material or in other assembly structural 

components at the HNP. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

use GNF–Ziron fuel rod cladding 

material would not significantly affect 

plant safety and would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the 

probability of an accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those previously analyzed in the 

Safety Analysis Report. There will be no 

change to radioactive effluents that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. No 

changes will be made to plant buildings 

or the site property. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of 

radiological impacts are expected as a 

result of the proposed exemption. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. Therefore, no 

changes to or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. The details of the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided in the exemption that will be 

issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption to the 

regulation, if granted. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative). Denial of the exemption 

request would result in no change in 

current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement for the Edwin I. Hatch 

Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, dated 1978 

and the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants: Regarding Edwin I. 

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2— 

Final Report (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 4) dated May 2001 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML011420057) 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on October 25, 2010, the staff consulted 

with the Georgia State official, Mr. Jim 

Hardeman of the Department of Natural 

Resources, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for an 

exemption and license amendment and 

supporting documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you can access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

number for the document related to this 

notice, ‘‘Edwin I. Hatch, Unit 2 Proposed 

Exemption from Fuel Cladding Material 

Requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 

CFR Appendix K,’’ dated May 12, 2010, 

including non-proprietary publically 

available versions of its enclosures, is 

ML101340739. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or 

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

The document may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, November 2, 

2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Robert E. Martin, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28400 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–133; NRC–2010–0346] 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to Exemption of Material for 

Proposed Disposal Procedures for the 

Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, 

License DPR–007, Eureka, CA 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Hickman, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES