Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 9619 

alternate full compliance 

implementation date of August 31, 

2010, approximately 5 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 CFR 

part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the Surry site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

December 7, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time due to the large scope of work 

required to meet the requirements of the 

new 10 CFR 73.55. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff 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 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 29, 2009 (74 FR 13967). There 

will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that effect 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 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 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 proposed an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact (Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements (74 FR 

13926), March 27, 2009). 

If this exemption is granted, 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. If the proposed action was 

denied, the licensee would have to 

comply with the March 31, 2010, 

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 Related to the Continuation 

of Construction and the Operation of 

Units 1 and 2, Surry Power Station,’’ 

dated May 1972 and June 1972, 

respectively, as supplemented through 

the ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants: Supplement 6 Regarding 

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2— 

Final Report (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 6),’’ dated November 2002. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 3, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Virginia State 

official, Mr. Leslie Foldesi, Division of 

Radiological Health of the Virginia 

Department of 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 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 December 7, 2009. The 

attachments to the licensee’s December 

7, 2009, letter requesting this 

exemption, contain safeguards 

information and, accordingly, are not 

available to the public. Publicly 

available 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, 

Public File Area O–1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), 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 800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Karen Cotton, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 

1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4437 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–395; NRC–2010–0077] 

South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station; Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 

CFR), Section 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance 

criteria for emergency core cooling 

systems for light-water nuclear power 

reactors,’’ and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, 

AECCS Evaluation Models, for the 

Renewed Facility Operating License No. 

NPF–12, issued to South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the 

licensee), for operation of the Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), 

located in Fairfield County, South 

Carolina. In accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 51, the 

NRC has prepared an Environmental 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 

Assessment (EA) in support of this 

exemption. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would allow 

SCE&G to use Optimized ZIRLOTM, an 

advanced alloy fuel cladding material 

for pressurized-water reactors. The 

proposed action is in accordance with 

the licensee’s application dated June 9, 

2009 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML091620072). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed so that 

SCE&G can use Optimized ZIRLOTM, an 

advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding and 

other assembly structural components at 

the VCSNS. 

Section 50.46 of 10 CFR and 10 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, make no provisions 

for use of fuel rods clad in a material 

other than zircaloy or ZIRLOTM. Since 

the chemical composition of the 

Optimized ZIRLOTM alloy differs from 

the specifications for zircaloy or ZIRLO, 

a plant-specific exemption is required to 

allow the use of the Optimized 

ZIRLOTM alloy as a cladding material or 

in other assembly structural 

components at the VCSNS. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

approve the use of an additional fuel 

rod cladding material 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 in the 

Final Environmental Statement for the 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 

No. 1, NUREG–0719, dated May 1981 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072750234) 

and the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 15, dated February 2004 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML040540718). 

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 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 concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 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, 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 application 

request 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 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement for the Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG– 

0719, dated May 1981 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML072750234) and the 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 15, dated February 2004 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML040540718). 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on January 11, 2010, the staff consulted 

with the South Carolina State official, 

Susan Jenkins of the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental 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. 

Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for an 

exemption and license amendment and 

supporting documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

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

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

you can access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

number for the document related to this 

notice, ‘‘License Amendment Request 

for Use of Optimized ZirloTM Fuel Rod 

Cladding,’’ dated June 9, 2009, is 

ML091620072. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or 

by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

The document may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Robert E. Martin, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4383 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366; NRC– 

2010–0024] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Southern Nuclear Operating 

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

the holder of Renewed Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–57 and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES