73134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

A copy of the draft supporting 

statement may be viewed free of charge 

at the NRC Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 

20852. OMB clearance requests are 

available at the NRC worldwide Web 

site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 

document will be available on the NRC 

home page site for 60 days after the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available for public 

inspection. Because your comments will 

not be edited to remove any identifying 

or contact information, the NRC 

cautions you against including any 

information in your submission that you 

do not want to be publicly disclosed. 

Comments submitted should reference 

Docket No. NRC–2010–0338. You may 

submit your comments by any of the 

following methods. Electronic 

comments: Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. NRC–2010–0338. Mail 

comments to NRC Clearance Officer, 

Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions 

about the information collection 

requirements may be directed to the 

NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine 

Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, by telephone at 301– 

415–6258, or by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day 

of November 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29932 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389; NRC– 

2010–0363] 

Florida Power and Light Company, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is considering issuance of an exemption 

from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Section 

26.9, for Facility Operating License Nos. 

DPR–67 and NPF–16, issued to Florida 

Power and Light Company, et al. (the 

licensee), for operation of St. Lucie 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located on 

Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, 

Florida. Therefore, as required by 10 

CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an 

environmental assessment. Based on the 

results of the environmental assessment, 

the NRC is issuing a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would consider 

approval of an exemption for St. Lucie 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, 

‘‘Fitness-for-Duty Rule.’’ Specifically, the 

licensee requests approval of an 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 26.205(c), ‘‘Work hours 

scheduling,’’ and (d), ‘‘Work hour 

controls.’’ 

The licensee states that during severe 

weather conditions, for example, 

tropical storms or hurricane force 

winds, adherence to all work hour 

controls requirements could impede the 

licensee’s ability to use whatever staff 

resources may be necessary to prepare 

the site for a pending severe weather 

event and ensure that the plant reaches 

and maintains a safe and secure status. 

The exemption would only apply to 

severe weather conditions where 

tropical storm or hurricane force winds 

are predicted onsite requiring severe 

weather preparations, and activation 

and sequestering of the St. Lucie storm 

crew. 

The proposed exemption will allow 

the licensee to not meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and 

(d), from the time severe weather site 

preparation begins until exit conditions 

are satisfied. The exemption would only 

apply to individuals on the storm crew 

who perform duties identified in 10 CFR 

26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). When storm 

crew sequestering exit conditions are 

met, full compliance with 10 CFR 

26.205(c) and (d) will be required. 

The proposed action does not involve 

any physical changes to the reactor, 

fuel, plant, structures, support 

structures, water, or land at the St. Lucie 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

October 16, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

Proposed action is needed because the 

licensee is unable to meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and 

(d) during declarations of severe 

weather conditions that could result due 

to prevailing tropical storm or hurricane 

force winds impacting the facility. 

Compliance with work hour control 

requirements could impede the 

licensee’s ability to use whatever staff 

resources may be necessary to respond 

to a plant emergency and ensure that the 

plant reaches and maintains a safe and 

secure status. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The NRC staff has 

concluded that the proposed exemption 

from the implementation of the 

requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and 

(d) during declaration of severe weather 

conditions, would not significantly 

affect plant safety and would not have 

a significant adverse affect on the 

probability of occurrence of an accident. 

The proposed action would not result 

in any increased radiological hazards 

beyond those previously evaluated by 

the NRC staff in the Safety Evaluation 

Reports, dated November 8 and 

November 7, 1974, related to operation 

of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

respectively. No changes are being made 

in the types of effluents that may be 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in the amount of any effluent 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in occupational or public 

radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 

no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

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 or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens 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 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 licensee currently maintains a 

Hurricane Plan that provides directions 

for activation of the storm crew. The 

storm crew is activated upon the 

direction of the Emergency Coordinator, 

typically the site Plant General Manager 

or designee. This individual is qualified 

as an Emergency Coordinator during a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

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