Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73135 

declared emergency. The Plan provides 

specific entry conditions for the start of 

the emergency and specific conditions 

that will terminate the emergency. The 

licensee states that the impact on 

personnel manning for implementation 

of the site hurricane staffing and severe 

weather preparations is similar to 

entering the Emergency Plan. Although 

the proposed exemption would allow 

the licensee not to meet work hour 

controls during storm crew activation, 

sufficient numbers of management and 

supervision will be available during 

storm crew manning and activation to 

ensure that public health and safety is 

adequately protected. 

The details of the 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. If the 

proposed action were denied, the 

licensee would have to comply with the 

fatigue rules in 10 CFR 26.205(c) and 

(d). This would cause unnecessary 

burden on the licensee, without a 

significant benefit in environmental 

impacts. The environmental impacts of 

the proposed exemption and the ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative 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 related to the St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final 

Environmental Statement related to the 

operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 

(NUREG–0842), dated April 1982; and, 

the plant-specific Supplement 11 to 

NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Power Plants’’ (GEIS). 

Supplement 11 of the GEIS, issued on 

May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of 

operating licenses DPR–67 and NPF–16 

for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an 

additional 20 years of operation. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on September 7, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Florida State official, 

William A Passetti of the Bureau of 

Radiation Control, 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. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated October 16, 2009 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML092990394). 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. 

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 800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or 

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day 

of November 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tracy J. Orf, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29935 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364; NRC– 

2009–0375] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an Exemption, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from 10 CFR Part 

73, ‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8, issued 

to Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Inc. (SNC, the licensee), for 

operation of the Joseph M. Farley 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (FNP), 

located in Houston County, Alabama. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

prepared an environmental assessment 

documenting its finding. The NRC 

concluded that the proposed actions 

will have no significant environmental 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

the FNP from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for several new requirements of 10 CFR 

Part 73. Specifically, FNP would be 

granted an exemption from being in full 

compliance with certain new 

requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010, deadline. 

Instead, the licensee has proposed an 

alternate full compliance 

implementation date of July 15, 2011. 

The proposed action, an extension of 

the schedule for completion of certain 

actions required by the revised 10 CFR 

Part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the FNP site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

September 10, 2010, as supplemented 

by letter dated October 5, 2010. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to perform the required upgrades to 

the FNP security system due to resource 

and logistical constraints. Previously, by 

letters dated June 9 and July 31, 2009, 

SNC submitted a request for an 

exemption from the compliance date 

identified in 10 CFR 73.55 for three 

specific requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. 

The NRC staff reviewed the request and 

by letter dated August 27, 2009, granted 

an exemption to the March 31, 2010, 

compliance date for the 3 specific 

requirements identified within the SNC 

exemption request until December 15, 

2010. Subsequently, by letters dated 

September 10 and October 5, 2010, SNC 

submitted an additional request for an 

exemption to the compliance date 

identified in 10 CFR 73.55. The licensee 

has requested a further exemption from 

the March 31, 2010, compliance date 

stating that a number of issues, 

including unforeseen growth in the 

amount of design work required, design 

product loss due to computer hardware 

failures, and weather-related 

construction delays, will present a 

significant challenge to timely 

completion of the project related to 

certain requirements in 10 CFR 73.55. 

Specifically, the request is to extend the 

compliance date for three specific 

requirements from the current March 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

73136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

31, 2010 deadline, as extended for this 

specific licensee to December 15, 2010, 

by the exemption granted on August 27, 

2009, until July 15, 2011. Being granted 

this exemption for these items will 

allow the licensee to complete the 

modifications designed to update 

equipment and incorporate state-of-theart technology to meet the noted 

regulatory requirement. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption and has concluded 

that the proposed action to extend the 

implementation deadline 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. There will be no change to 

radioactive effluents that effect radiation 

exposures to plant workers and 

members of the public. The proposed 

action does not involve a change to 

plant buildings or land areas on the FNP 

site. 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 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of the 

proposed exemption. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff concludes that there are no 

significant environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

The licensee currently maintains a 

security system acceptable to the NRC 

and the NRC expects that the licensee 

will continue to maintain the 

effectiveness of the overall physical 

protection program and protective 

strategy for the duration of this 

exemption. Therefore, the extension of 

the implementation date of the new 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to July 

15, 2011, would not have any significant 

environmental impacts. 

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. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

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

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. The environmental impacts of 

the proposed exemption and technical 

specification change and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative 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 FNP, as supplemented 

through the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants: Joseph M. Farley 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2—Final 

Report (NUREG—1437, Supplement 

18).’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on November 15, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Alabama State 

official, Mr. David Walters of the 

Alabama 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 environmental 

assessment, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed action will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff 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 

letters dated September 10, 2010 and 

October 5, 2009. The licensee has 

provided a redacted version of the 

September 10, 2010 letter that is 

publically available and the October 5, 

2010 transmittal letter is publically 

available. The edition of the September 

10, 2010 letter and its enclosure and the 

enclosure to the October 5, 2010 letter 

that contains proprietary securityrelated information is not available to 

the public. Other parts of 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, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (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@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of November, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Robert E. Martin, 

Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 

II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29940 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0002] 

Sunshine Act Notice 

DATES: Week of November 29, 2010. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and closed. 

Additional Items To Be Considered 

Week of November 29, 2010 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 

10 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative). 

a. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts 

Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), Southern 

Alliance for Clean Energy’s Petition for 

Interlocutory Review of LBP–10–12 

(Denying SACE’s Waiver Petition) (July 

14, 2010) (Tentative). 

* * * * * 

* 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES