[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80545-80546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32142]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-261; NRC-2010-0062]


Carolina Power & Light Company; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric 
Plant, Unit No. 2; 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 the 
implementation date for certain new requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, 
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-23, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, 
Unit 2 (HBRSEP), located in Darlington County, South Carolina. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification of 
licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,'' 
the NRC staff prepared an environmental assessment documenting its 
finding. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action will have no 
significant environmental impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the required 
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for one specific requirement of 
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, HBRSEP would be granted a second 
exemption, further extending the date for full compliance with one 
remaining item of the requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55, from 
December 30, 2010, (the date specified in a prior exemption granted by 
NRC on March 3, 2010), until September 16, 2011. The proposed action, 
an extension of the schedule for completion of certain actions required 
by the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not result in any additional 
physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, support 
structures, water, or land at the HBRSEP site.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated September 30, 2010.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption is needed to provide the licensee with 
additional time, beyond the date granted by the NRC letter dated March 
3, 2010, to implement one remaining item of the two requirements in the 
previous exemption that involves important physical modifications to 
the HBRSEP security system. The licensee has performed an extensive 
evaluation of the revised 10 CFR Part 73 and has achieved compliance 
with a vast majority of the revised rule by the March 31, 2010, 
compliance date. However, the licensee has determined that 
implementation of one specific provisions of the rule will require more 
time to implement because they involve upgrades to the security system 
that require significant physical modifications (e.g., the relocation 
of certain security assets to a new security building that will be 
constructed, and the addition of certain power supplies). There are 
several issues which have delayed the work to this point and impacted 
the projected schedule: (1) The complexity of the design and 
construction of the projects which lead to unforeseen scope growth; (2) 
a better understanding of the time necessary for transition and testing 
for the new systems; and (3) due to a fire in an electrical switchgear 
room, the spring refueling outage was extended beyond that originally 
anticipated when schedules were first developed. These issues were 
revealed as the design evolved from the conceptual state to a detailed 
design. Additional time, beyond that previously approved, is needed due 
the extensive redesign and review effort that was unforeseen at the 
conceptual design stage.

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 or 
consequences of an accident.
    The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological 
hazard beyond those 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 13967). There will be no 
change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to 
plant workers and members of the public. 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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

[[Page 80546]]

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.
    With its request to extend the implementation deadline, the 
licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC 
and that will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of 
HBRSEP in lieu of the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73. Therefore, 
the extension of the implementation date for one element of the new 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to September 16, 2011, would not have 
any significant environmental impacts.
    The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided as part of a 
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 NRC 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 was denied, the licensee 
would have to comply with the existing implementation deadline of 
December 30, 2010, for one remaining item of the two requirements, as 
granted on March 3, 2010. 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 for the HBRSEP, 
dated April 1975, as supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: H.B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2--Final Report (NUREG--1437, Supplement 
13).''

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on December 15, 2010, the NRC 
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Susan Jenkins 
of the South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste Management, 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 September 30, 2010. Portions of the September 
30, 2010, submittal contain proprietary and security-related 
information, and accordingly, a redacted version of this letter is 
available for public review in the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML102770306. This document 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 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send 
an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b0b1f0955091e08140e09181e3b150918551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b0b1f0955091e08140e09181e3b150918551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-32142 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


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