8150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 

for calculating KIM stress intensity 

values. 

The proposed action would exempt 

the licensee from certain requirements 

of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 to 

allow the application of the 

methodology in CE NPSD–683–A, 

Revision 6, for the calculation of flaw 

stress intensity factors due to internal 

pressure loadings (KIM). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The exemption is needed to allow the 

licensee to use an alternate methodology 

to meet the fracture toughness 

requirements for the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary. In the considering 

the exemption request, the staff has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii), the application of the 

regulation in the particular 

circumstances is not necessary to 

achieve the underlying purpose of the 

rule, based on the alternate 

methodology proposed by the licensee. 

The proposed action would revise the 

currently-approved methodology for P– 

T limit calculations to incorporate the 

methodology approved for use in CE 

NPSD–683–A, Revision 6. The topical 

report allows the use of an alternate 

methodology to calculate the flaw stress 

intensity factors due to internal pressure 

loadings (KIM). Specifically, the 

exemption is needed because the 

methodology in CE NPSD–683–A, 

Revision 6, could not be shown to be 

conservative with respect to the 

methodology for the determination of 

KIM provided in Editions and Addenda 

of the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code (ASME Code), Section XI, 

Appendix G, through the 1995 Edition 

and 1996 Addenda (the latest Edition 

and Addenda of the ASME Code which 

had been incorporated into 10 CFR 

50.55a at the time of the staff’s review 

of CE NPSD–683–A, Revision 6). 

Therefore, the licensee submitted an 

exemption request, consistent with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply 

the KIM calculational methodology of CE 

NPSD–683–A, Revision 6, as part of the 

PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, PTLR 

methodology. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its evaluation 

of the proposed action and concludes 

that the use of the alternate 

methodology described above would 

provide an adequate margin of safety 

against brittle failure of the reactor 

pressure vessels at PVNGS, Units 1, 2 

and 3. The proposed change does not 

involve any replacement or 

modification of plant components and 

no changes are proposed in the 

operation of PVNGS. Therefore the staff 

concludes that the use of an alternate 

methodology as described in the 

licensee’s request would not 

significantly affect plant safety and 

would not have a significant adverse 

affect on the probability of an accident 

occurring. 

The proposed action will not result in 

any non-radiological impacts or 

radiological impacts. The proposed 

action does not result in changes to the 

operation of the plant and supporting 

facilities, land use, or water use, nor 

does it result in changes to the quality 

or quantity of non-radiological and 

radiological effluents. No impacts are 

expected to the air or ambient air 

quality. No impacts are expected to 

aquatic or terrestrial habitats or species, 

or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species. No impacts are 

expected to historic and cultural 

resources, or to socioeconomic 

resources. Accordingly, the NRC 

concludes that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

The details of the staff’s safety 

evaluation will be provided in the 

exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, 

which will allow the use of the 

methodology in Topical Report CE 

NPSD–683–A, Revision 6, to calculate 

the flaw stress intensity factors due to 

internal pressure loadings (KIM). The 

exemption will be issued in a future 

letter to the licensee. 

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 application 

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 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for the Palo 

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 

1, 2, and 3, NUREG–0841, dated 

February 1982. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 12, 2010, the staff 

consulted with the Arizona State 

official, Mr. Aubrey Godwin of the 

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, 

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 

letters dated February 19 and December 

22, 2009 (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML090641014 

and ML10040069, respectively). 

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 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 February 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. 2010–3496 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499; NRC– 

2010–060] 

STP Nuclear Operating Company 

South Texas Project, Units 1 and 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 8151 

Licenses numbered NPF–76 and NPF– 

80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating 

Company (the licensee), for operation of 

South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 

2, located in Matagorda County, Texas. 

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 

STP, Units 1 and 2, from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for certain new requirements of 10 CFR 

Part 73. Specifically, STP, Units 1 and 

2, 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. 

The licensee for STP, Units 1 and 2, has 

proposed an alternate full compliance 

implementation date of June 30, 2010, 3 

months beyond the date required by 10 

CFR Part 73. The proposed action, an 

extension of the schedule for 

completion of certain actions required 

by the revised 10 FR Part 73, does not 

involve any physical changes to the 

reactor, fuel, plant structures, support 

structures, water, or land at the STP, 

Units 1 and 2, site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 18, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time required to perform the required 

upgrades to the STP, Units 1 and 2 

security systems. 

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 action to 

extend the compliance 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 any increased radiological hazards 

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 13926). 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 

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. In addition, in 

promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR 

Part 73, the Commission prepared an 

environmental assessment and 

published a finding of no significant 

impact (Part 73, Power Reactor Security 

Requirements, 74 FR 13926 (March 27, 

2009)). 

With its request to extend the 

compliance implementation deadline, 

the licensee has proposed compensatory 

measures to be taken in lieu of full 

compliance with the new requirements 

specified in 10 CFR Part 73. The 

licensee currently maintains a security 

system acceptable to the NRC. The 

proposed compensatory measures will 

continue to provide acceptable physical 

protection of the STP, Units 1 and 2, in 

lieu of the new requirements in 10 CFR 

Part 73. Therefore, the extension of the 

implementation date of the new 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to June 

30, 2010, 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 actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ 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 March 31, 2010, 

compliance implementation deadline. 

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 STP, Units 1 and 2, 

NUREG–1172, dated August 1986. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 1, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Texas State official, 

Ms. Alice Rogers of the Texas State 

Department of Health, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The Texas 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 November 18, 2009. Portions of 

November 18, 2009, submittal contains 

security related information and, 

accordingly, are not available to the 

public. Other parts of the 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 Agencywide Documents 

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.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch LPLIV, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3498 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES