11580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices 

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, as 

noted above, allows an extension from 

March 31, 2010, until December 30, 

2010, to allow for temporary 

noncompliance with the new rule in 

two specific areas. As stated above, 10 

CFR 73.5 allows the NRC to grant 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR 73. 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, 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 and discussed in the 

June 4, 2009 letter. 

HBRSEP Schedule Exemption Request 

The licensee provided detailed 

information in Attachment 1 of its 

November 30, 2009, letter requesting an 

exemption. It describes a 

comprehensive plan to upgrade the 

security capabilities of its HBRSEP site 

and provides a timeline for achieving 

full compliance with the new 

regulation. Attachment 1 contains 

proprietary information regarding the 

site security plan, details of the specific 

requirements of the regulation for which 

the site cannot be in compliance by the 

March 31, 2010, deadline and why the 

site cannot be in compliance, 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 30, 2010. The timeline 

provides dates indicating when 

construction will begin on various 

phases of the project and when critical 

equipment will be ordered, installed, 

tested and become operational. 

Notwithstanding the schedular 

exemptions for these limited 

requirements, 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. 

Furthermore, the security measures for 

which HBRSEP needs additional time to 

implement are in addition to those 

required by the security orders issued in 

response to the events of September 11, 

2001. By December 30, 2010, HBRSEP 

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 staff has reviewed the licensee’s 

submittal and concludes that the 

licensee has provided adequate 

justification for its request for an 

extension of the compliance date to 

December 30, 2010, with regard to two 

specified requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 

73.5, 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 

when the associated HBRSEP site 

modifications are complete justify 

exceeding the full compliance date with 

regard to the two specific requirements 

of 10 CFR 73.55 in the case of this 

particular licensee. Therefore, the NRC 

concludes 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, 

deadline for the two items specified in 

Attachment 1 of the licensee’s letter 

dated November 30, 2009, the licensee 

is required to be in full compliance by 

December 30, 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 8410, 

February 24, 2010. 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of March 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5271 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–302, License No. DPR–72; 

Docket No. 50–302, NRC–2010–0096] 

Florida Power Corporation, City of 

Alachua, City of Bushnell, City of 

Gainesville, City of Kissimmee, City of 

Leesburg, City of New Smyrna Beach 

and Utilities Commission, City of New 

Smyrna Beach, City of Ocala, Orlando 

Utilities Commission and City of 

Orlando, Seminole Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant; Receipt of 

Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 

Notice is hereby given that by petition 

dated December 5, 2009, Mr. Thomas 

Saporito (petitioner) has requested that 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) take action with 

regard to the licensee for the Crystal 

River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

(CR–3). The petitioner requests that 

NRC take enforcement action against the 

licensee and issue a Confirmatory Order 

requiring that the licensee take the 

following actions at CR–3: 

1. Physically remove the outer 10 

inches of concrete surrounding the CR– 

3 containment building from the top of 

the containment building to the bottom 

of the containment building and 

encompassing 360 degrees around the 

entire containment building; 

2. Test samples of the concrete 

removed from the CR–3 containment 

building for composition and compare 

the test results to a sample of concrete 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices 11581 

from a similarly designed facility like 

the Florida Power and Light Company, 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; 

3. Maintain the CR–3 in coldshutdown mode until such time as the 

licensee can demonstrate full 

compliance with its NRC operating 

license for CR–3 within the safety 

margins delineated in the licensee’s 

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 

and within the CR–3 site-specific 

technical specifications; and 

4. Provide the public with an 

opportunity to intervene at a public 

hearing before the NRC Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board to challenge any 

certification made by the licensee to 

NRC that it has reestablished full 

compliance with 10 CFR part 50 and the 

safety margins delineated in its FSAR 

and technical specifications. 

In addition, during the January 7, 

2010, conference call, the petitioner 

supplemented his December 5, 2009, 

petition with a verbal request to require 

the licensee to reform the containment 

building with additional concrete. The 

Petition Review Board (PRB) 

determined that this request 

supplements Item 1. 

As the basis for the request: 

1. The petitioner stated that during a 

maintenance activity performed under 

the direction and authorization of the 

licensee to cut an opening in the CR–3 

containment building for access to 

replace steam generator units, the CR– 

3 containment building was discovered 

to have one or more separations 

between the poured concrete perimeter 

wall of the containment building and 

the horizontally installed tendons 

placed from top to bottom around the 

containment building within 10 inches 

of the outermost part of the 42-inch 

thick concrete perimeter wall of the 

containment building. To date, the 

licensee has not been able to determine 

the ‘‘root-cause’’ of this structural 

failure. 

2. The petitioner stated that the 

licensee is currently engaged in 

conducting Impulse Testing of the 

remaining CR–3 containment building 

perimeter wall to determine if 

additional separations exist. However, 

the petitioner implies that the licensee’s 

use of Impulse Testing is not sufficient 

to make such a determination. Notably, 

Impact Echo testing is used worldwide 

to determine concrete cracking and 

failures on public bridges and the like, 

but even this type of testing is not 

sufficient to fully validate the entirety of 

the CR–3 containment building. 

Moreover, the petitioner believes that 

even the use of destructive testing to 

make visual inspections of small areas 

of the CR–3 containment building is not 

sufficient to qualify the entirety of the 

containment building. 

3. The petitioner stated that removal 

of 10 inches of concrete from the outer 

part of the 42-inch containment 

building wall from top to bottom and 

360-degrees around would effectively 

expose the entirety of the surrounding 

51⁄4-inch tendons and allow visual 

inspection of the inner side of the 

tendons to make certain that no 

separation between the tendons and the 

inner part of the concrete wall exist. 

4. The petitioner stated that removal 

of 10-inches of concrete from the outer 

part of the 42-inch containment 

building wall from top to bottom and 

360 degrees around would ensure for 

the best possible adhesion of a new 

concrete pour to the existing inner 

concrete perimeter wall of the 

containment building. 

5. The petitioner stated that the 

licensee’s FSAR requires that the CR–3 

containment building be composed of a 

monolithic concrete perimeter wall. The 

petitioner believes that the only way the 

licensee can fully achieve compliance 

with its FSAR is to remove 10 inches of 

concrete from the outer part of the 42- 

inch containment building wall from 

top to bottom and 360 degrees around 

for proper visual inspect repair 

activities. 

Moreover, during the January 7, 2010, 

conference call, the petitioner implied 

that a design flaw may have occurred, 

meaning the actual design of this 

containment structure has those tendons 

placed within 10 inches of the exterior 

part of that 42-inch thick concrete wall; 

the design may itself be flawed and 

subject the entire structure to other 

cracks, fissures, and voids that the 

licensee simply cannot detect with any 

type of instrumentation to make certain 

of their nonexistence. Therefore, the 

petitioner requested that the CR–3 

containment building not only meet but 

exceed its original design basis as 

delineated in the FSAR. 

The PRB discussed the petitioner’s 

request during internal meetings and 

made the initial PRB recommendation. 

The PRB’s initial recommendation is as 

follows: 

• Item 1, as supplemented by the 

January 7, 2010, conference call, does 

not meet the NRC Management 

Directive 8.11, ‘‘Review Process for 10 

CFR 2.206 Petitions’’ (MD 8.11), criteria 

for further review under the 10 CFR 

2.206 process in that sufficient facts 

have not been provided to support the 

request. 

• Item 2 does not meet the MD 8.11 

criteria for further review under the 10 

CFR 2.206 process in that sufficient 

facts have not been provided to support 

the request. 

• Item 3 meets the criteria established 

in MD 8.11 for acceptance into the 10 

CFR 2.206 process for the petition under 

consideration. 

• Item 4 does not meet the MD 8.11 

criteria for further review under the 10 

CFR 2.206 process in that the request 

has not specifically addressed an 

enforcement-related action. 

On February 2, 2010, the petition 

manager informed the petitioner of the 

PRB’s initial recommendation and 

offered him a second opportunity to 

address the PRB. On February 12, 2010, 

the petitioner declined the opportunity 

to address the PRB and did not provide 

any additional information for the PRB’s 

consideration. Therefore, the PRB’s 

initial recommendation, as discussed 

above, is the PRB’s final 

recommendation. 

NRC is treating Item 3 of the 

petitioner’s request pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.206, ‘‘Requests for Action under This 

Subpart.’’ The request has been referred 

to the Director of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. As provided by 

Section 2.206, NRC will take 

appropriate action on this petition 

within a reasonable time. A copy of the 

petition is available for inspection at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

(PDR) located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

MD. Publicly available records related 

to this action will be accessible 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 by e-mail 

to pdr.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for the incoming 

petition request is ML093430702. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of March, 2010. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Eric J. Leeds, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5273 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES