Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80545 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

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

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

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. NUREG–1953 is 

available electronically under ADAMS 

Accession Number ML102940233. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this notice can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0344. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Helton, Division of Risk 

Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. Telephone: 301–251–7594, e-mail: 

Donald.Helton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NUREG– 

1953, ‘‘Confirmatory Thermal-Hydraulic 

Analysis to Support Specific Success 

Criteria in the Standardized Plant 

Analysis Risk Models—Surry and Peach 

Bottom, Draft Report for Comment,’’ 

investigates specific thermal-hydraulic 

aspects of the Surry and Peach Bottom 

Standardized Plant Analysis Risk 

models, with the goal of further 

strengthening the technical basis for 

decisionmaking that relies on the SPAR 

models. This analysis employs the 

MELCOR computer code to analyze a 

number of scenarios with different 

assumptions. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of December, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kevin A. Coyne, 

Chief, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch, 

Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32140 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

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 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 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

1 VEPCO letter to NRC, Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML100470738. 

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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[ Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC– 

2010–0283] 

Virginia Electric and Power Company; 

Surry Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 

Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(the licensee) is the holder of Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–32 and 

DPR–37 which authorizes operation of 

the Surry Power Station (SURRY) Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2. The license provides, 

among other things, that the facility is 

subject to all rules, regulations, and 

Orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) 

now or hereafter in effect. 

The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Surry County, 

Virginia. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 

50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ the 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(VEPCO), by letter dated February 10, 

2010,1 requested an exemption from 

certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, 

‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core 

cooling systems [ECCS] for light-water 

nuclear power reactors,’’ and Appendix 

K to 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation 

Models’’ (Appendix K). The regulations 

in 10 CFR 50.46 contain acceptance 

criteria for the ECCS for reactors fueled 

with zircaloy or ZIRLOTM cladding. In 

addition, Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 

requires that the Baker-Just equation be 

used to predict the rates of energy 

release, hydrogen concentration, and 

cladding oxidation from the metal/water 

reaction. The Baker-Just equation 

assumed the use of a zirconium alloy 

different than Optimized ZIRLOTM. The 

exemption request relates solely to the 

specific types of cladding material 

specified in these regulations. As 

written, the regulations presume the use 

of zircaloy or ZIRLOTM fuel rod 

cladding. Thus, an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 

Appendix K is needed to support the 

use of different fuel rod cladding 

material. Therefore, the licensee 

requested an exemption that would 

allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM

fuel rod cladding at SURRY. The NRC 

staff will prepare a separate safety 

evaluation, fully addressing VEPCO’s 

application for a related license 

amendment. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health or safety, and are consistent with 

the common defense and security; and 

(2) when special circumstances are 

present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), 

special circumstances include, among 

other things, when application of the 

specific regulation in the particular 

circumstance would not serve, or is not 

necessary to achieve, the underlying 

purpose of the rule. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES