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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 9621 

NPF–5, which authorizes operation of 

the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 

1 and 2 (HNP). The licenses provide, 

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 two boilingwater reactors located in Appling 

County, Georgia. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 73, ‘‘Physical 

protection of plants and materials,’’ 

Section 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for 

physical protection of licensed activities 

in nuclear power reactors against 

radiological sabotage,’’ published March 

27, 2009, effective May 26, 2009, with 

a full implementation date of March 31, 

2010, requires licensees to protect, with 

high assurance, against radiological 

sabotage by designing and 

implementing comprehensive site 

security programs. The amendments to 

10 CFR 73.55 published on March 27, 

2009, establish and update generically 

applicable security requirements similar 

to those previously imposed by 

Commission orders issued after the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

and implemented by licensees. In 

addition, the amendments to 10 CFR 

73.55 include additional requirements 

to further enhance site security based 

upon insights gained from 

implementation of the post September 

11, 2001, security orders. It is from one 

requirement of these new requirements 

that HNP now seeks an exemption from 

the March 31, 2010, implementation 

date. All other physical security 

requirements established by this recent 

rulemaking have already been or will be 

implemented by the licensee by March 

31, 2010. 

By letter dated November 6, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated November 

20, 2009, the licensee requested an 

exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 

73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions.’’ The 

licensee’s letters contain proprietary 

information and, accordingly, those 

portions are not available to the public. 

The licensee has requested an 

exemption from the March 31, 2010, 

compliance date stating that a number 

of issues will present a significant 

challenge to timely completion of the 

project related to a specific requirement 

in 10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, the 

request is to extend the compliance date 

for one specific requirement from the 

current March 31, 2010, deadline to 

December 6, 2010. Being granted this 

exemption for the one item will allow 

the licensee to complete the 

modifications designed to update 

equipment and incorporate state-of-theart technology to meet the noted 

regulatory requirement. 

3.0 Discussion of Part 73 Schedule 

Exemptions From the March 31, 2010, 

Full Implementation Date 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), ‘‘By 

March 31, 2010, each nuclear power 

reactor licensee, licensed under 10 CFR 

Part 50, shall implement the 

requirements of this section through its 

Commission-approved Physical Security 

Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, 

Safeguards Contingency Plan, and Cyber 

Security Plan referred to collectively 

hereafter as ‘security plans.’ ’’ Pursuant 

to 10 CFR 73.5, the Commission may, 

upon application by any interested 

person or upon its own initiative, grant 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 73 when the exemptions are 

authorized by law, and will not 

endanger life or property or the common 

defense and security, and are otherwise 

in the public interest. 

NRC approval of this exemption 

would; as noted above, allow an 

extension from March 31, 2010, to 

December 6, 2010, for the 

implementation date for one specific 

requirement of the new rule. The NRC 

staff has determined that granting of the 

licensee’s proposed exemption will not 

result in a violation of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the 

Commission’s regulations. Therefore, 

the exemption is authorized by law. 

In the draft final rule provided to the 

Commission (SECY–08–0099 dated July 

9, 2008), the NRC staff proposed that the 

requirements of the new regulation be 

met within 180 days. The Commission 

directed a change from 180 days to 

approximately 1 year for licensees to 

fully implement the new requirements. 

This change was incorporated into the 

final rule. From this, it is clear that the 

Commission wanted to provide a 

reasonable timeframe for licensees to 

achieve full compliance. 

As noted in the final rule, the 

Commission also anticipated that 

licensees would have to conduct site 

specific analyses to determine what 

changes were necessary to implement 

the rule’s requirements, and that 

changes could be accomplished through 

a variety of licensing mechanisms, 

including exemptions. Since issuance of 

the final rule, the Commission has 

rejected a generic industry request to 

extend the rule’s compliance date for all 

operating nuclear power plants, but 

noted that the Commission’s regulations 

provide mechanisms for individual 

licensees, with good cause, to apply for 

relief from the compliance date 

(Reference: June 4, 2009, letter from 

R.W. Borchardt, NRC, to M.S. Fertel, 

Nuclear Energy Institute). The licensee’s 

request for an exemption is therefore 

consistent with the approach set forth 

by the Commission as discussed in the 

June 4, 2009, letter. 

HNP Schedule Exemption Request 

The licensee provided detailed 

information in its letter dated November 

6, 2009, as supplemented November 20, 

2009, requesting an exemption. It 

describes a comprehensive plan to 

install equipment related to a certain 

requirement in the new Part 73 rule and 

provides a timeline for achieving full 

compliance with the new regulation. 

The submittals contain proprietary 

information regarding the site security 

plan, details of the specific requirement 

of the regulation for which the site 

cannot be in compliance by the March 

31, 2010, deadline and why, the 

required changes to the site’s security 

configuration, and a timeline with 

critical path activities that will bring the 

licensee into full compliance by 

December 6, 2010. The timeline 

provides dates indicating (1) when 

various phases of the project begin and 

end (i.e., design, field construction), (2) 

outages scheduled for each unit, and (3) 

when critical equipment will be 

ordered, installed, tested and become 

operational. 

Notwithstanding the schedular 

exemption for this limited requirement, 

the licensee will continue to be in 

compliance with all other applicable 

physical security requirements as 

described in 10 CFR 73.55 and reflected 

in its current NRC approved physical 

security program. By December 6, 2010, 

HNP will be in full compliance with all 

the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 

73.55, as issued on March 27, 2009. 

4.0 Conclusion for Part 73 Schedule 

Exemption Request 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s submittals and concludes that 

the licensee has provided adequate 

justification for its request for an 

extension of the compliance date to 

December 6, 2010, with regard to a 

specific requirement of 10 CFR 73.55. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 

73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ an 

exemption from the March 31, 2010, 

compliance date is authorized by law 

and will not endanger life or property or 

the common defense and security, and 

is otherwise in the public interest. 

Therefore, the Commission hereby 

grants the requested exemption. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

long-term benefits that will be realized 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 

when the HNP equipment installation is 

complete justifies extending the full 

compliance date with regard to the 

specific requirement of 10 CFR 73.55. 

The security measure, that HNP needs 

additional time to implement, is a new 

requirement imposed by the March 27, 

2009, amendments to 10 CFR 73.55, and 

is in addition to those required by the 

security orders issued in response to the 

events of September 11, 2001. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the 

licensee’s actions are in the best interest 

of protecting the public health and 

safety through the security changes that 

will result from granting this exemption. 

As per the licensee’s request and the 

NRC’s regulatory authority to grant an 

exemption from the March 31, 2010, 

implementation deadline for the 

requirement specified in the SNC letter 

dated November 6, 2009, as 

supplemented November 20, 2009, the 

licensee is required to be in full 

compliance by December 6, 2010. In 

achieving compliance, the licensee is 

reminded that it is responsible for 

determining the appropriate licensing 

mechanism (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(p) or 10 

CFR 50.90) for incorporation of all 

necessary changes to its security plans. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of 

no significant impact,’’ the Commission 

has previously determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment (75 FR 3761; dated 

January 22, 2010). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Allen G. Howe, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4380 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425; NRC– 

2010–0023] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating 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. NPF–68 and 

NPF–81, which authorizes operation of 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2 (VEGP). The licenses 

provide, 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 two 

pressurized-water reactors located in 

Burke County, Georgia. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 73, ‘‘Physical 

protection of plants and materials,’’ 

Section 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for 

physical protection of licensed activities 

in nuclear power reactors against 

radiological sabotage,’’ published March 

27, 2009, effective May 26, 2009, with 

a full implementation date of March 31, 

2010, requires licensees to protect, with 

high assurance, against radiological 

sabotage by designing and 

implementing comprehensive site 

security programs. The amendments to 

10 CFR 73.55 published on March 27, 

2009 establish and update generically 

applicable security requirements similar 

to those previously imposed by 

Commission orders issued after the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

and implemented by licensees. In 

addition, the amendments to 10 CFR 

73.55 include additional requirements 

to further enhance site security based 

upon insights gained from 

implementation of the post September 

11, 2001, security orders. It is from one 

requirement of these new requirements 

that VEGP now seeks an exemption 

from the March 31, 2010, 

implementation date. All other physical 

security requirements established by 

this recent rulemaking have already 

been or will be implemented by the 

licensee by March 31, 2010. 

By letter dated November 6, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated November 

20, 2009, the licensee requested an 

exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 

73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions.’’ The 

licensee’s letters contain proprietary 

information and, accordingly, those 

portions are not available to the public. 

The licensee has requested an 

exemption from the March 31, 2010, 

compliance date stating that a number 

of issues will present a significant 

challenge to timely completion of the 

project related to a specific requirement 

in 10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, the 

request is to extend the compliance date 

for one specific requirement from the 

current March 31, 2010, deadline to 

September 27, 2010. Being granted this 

exemption for the one item will allow 

the licensee to complete the 

modifications designed to update 

equipment and incorporate state-of-theart technology to meet the noted 

regulatory requirement. 

3.0 Discussion of Part 73 Schedule 

Exemptions From the March 31, 2010, 

Full Implementation Date 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), ‘‘By 

March 31, 2010, each nuclear power 

reactor licensee, licensed under 10 CFR 

Part 50, shall implement the 

requirements of this section through its 

Commission-approved Physical Security 

Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, 

Safeguards Contingency Plan, and Cyber 

Security Plan referred to collectively 

hereafter as ‘security plans.’ ’’ Pursuant 

to 10 CFR 73.5, the Commission may, 

upon application by any interested 

person or upon its own initiative, grant 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 73 when the exemptions are 

authorized by law, and will not 

endanger life or property or the common 

defense and security, and are otherwise 

in the public interest. 

NRC approval of this exemption 

would; as noted above, allow an 

extension from March 31, 2010, to 

September 27, 2010, for the 

implementation date for one specific 

requirement of the new rule. The NRC 

staff has determined that granting of the 

licensee’s proposed exemption will not 

result in a violation of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the 

Commission’s regulations. Therefore, 

the exemption is authorized by law. 

In the draft final rule provided to the 

Commission (SECY–08–0099 dated July 

9, 2008), the NRC staff proposed that the 

requirements of the new regulation be 

met within 180 days. The Commission 

directed a change from 180 days to 

approximately 1 year for licensees to 

fully implement the new requirements. 

This change was incorporated into the 

final rule. From this, it is clear that the 

Commission wanted to provide a 

reasonable timeframe for licensees to 

achieve full compliance. 

As noted in the final rule, the 

Commission also anticipated that 

licensees would have to conduct site 

specific analyses to determine what 

changes were necessary to implement 

the rule’s requirements, and that 

changes could be accomplished through 

a variety of licensing mechanisms, 

including exemptions. Since issuance of 

the final rule, the Commission has 

rejected a generic industry request to 

extend the rule’s compliance date for all 

operating nuclear power plants, but 

noted that the Commission’s regulations 

provide mechanisms for individual 

licensees, with good cause, to apply for 

relief from the compliance date 

(Reference: June 4, 2009, letter from 

R.W. Borchardt, NRC, to M.S. Fertel, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES