Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10835 

Steven’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 prepared an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact [Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926 (March 27, 2009)]. 

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 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (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 for CGS dated December 

1981. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 1, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Washington State 

official, Mr. R. Cowley of the Office of 

Radiation Protection, 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 January 27, 2010. Portions of the 

document contain security-related 

information and, accordingly, are not 

available to the public. Other parts of 

the document may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Room O–1 F21, 

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 25th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Lynnea E. Wilkins, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4676 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–285; NRC–2010–0087] 

Omaha Public Power District, Fort 

Calhoun Station, Unit 1, 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 Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–40, issued 

to Omaha Public Power District (OPPD, 

the licensee), for operation of Fort 

Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS), located 

in Washington County, Nebraska. 

Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, 

the NRC performed an environmental 

assessment. Based on the results of the 

environmental assessment, the NRC is 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

FCS from the required implementation 

date of March 31, 2010, for several new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73. 

Specifically, FCS 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. OPPD 

has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of 

October 5, 2011, approximately 19 

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 FCS site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

December 31, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 21, 2010. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to perform the required upgrades to 

the FCS security system due to the time 

required for significant design, 

procurement, and installation activities 

needed to implement the required 

upgrades. 

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 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

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 prepared an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact [Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926 (March 27, 2009)]. 

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 

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 for the FCS dated August 

1972, as supplemented through the 

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants: Fort Calhoun Station 

Unit 1—Final Report (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 12).’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 4, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Nebraska State 

official, Julia Schmitt, of the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Regulation and Licensure, 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 31, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated January 

21, 2010. The January 21, 2010, 

submittal and portions of the December 

31, 2009, submittal contain securityrelated information and, accordingly, 

are exempt from public disclosure. 

Other parts of the December 31, 2009, 

document may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Room O–1 F21, 

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 2nd day 

of March 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Lynnea Wilkins, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4940 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–334 And 50–412; NRC– 

2010–0049] 

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Firstenergy Nuclear 

Generation Corp., Ohio Edison 

Company, the Toledo Edison 

Company, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 And 2; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company (licensee) is the holder of 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–66 

and NPF–73, which authorizes 

operation of the Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 

2). The license provides, among other 

things, that the facility is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. The facility consists of two 

pressurized-water reactors located in 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania. 

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 plans. 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 

of these new requirements that BVPS– 

1 and 2 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 30, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated December 

23, 2009, the licensee requested an 

exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 

73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions.’’ The 

licensee’s letters contain security 

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. The request is to 

extend the compliance date for one 

specific requirement from the current 

March 31, 2010, deadline to December 

17, 2010. Being granted this exemption 

for the extension would allow the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES