Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8903 

relevant issue finality provisions in Part 

52. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of February 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Thomas H. Boyce, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3377 Filed 2–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–400, NRC–2012–0034] 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact; 

Carolina Power and Light Company 

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, 

Unit 1 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Araceli T. Billoch Colo ́n, Project 

Manager, Licensing Branch II–2, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Rockville, Maryland, 20822. Telephone: 

(301) 415–3302; fax number: (301) 415– 

1032; email: Araceli.Billoch@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

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) 50.46, 

‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Emergency 

Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water 

Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ and 10 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency 

Core Cooling System] Evaluation 

Models,’’ to allow for the use of M5TM

alloy fuel rod cladding for Renewed 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–63, 

issued to Carolina Power and Light 

Company (the licensee), doing business 

as Progress Energy Carolinas Inc., for 

operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear 

Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), located in 

New Hill, North Carolina. In accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria for and 

Identification of Licensing and 

Regulatory Actions Requiring 

Environmental Assessments,’’ the NRC 

staff prepared an environmental 

assessment documenting its finding. 

The NRC staff concluded that the 

proposed action will have no significant 

environmental impact. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Summary 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

the licensee from certain requirements 

of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10 

CFR part 50. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.46, 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) provides 

requirements for reactors containing 

uranium oxide fuel pellets clad in either 

zircaloy or ZIRLO. Additionally, 

appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 presumes 

the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO fuel 

cladding when doing calculations for 

energy release, cladding oxidation, and 

hydrogen generation after a postulated 

loss-of-coolant accident. Therefore, both 

of these regulations state or assume that 

either zircaloy or ZIRLO is used as the 

fuel rod cladding material. The 

proposed exemption would allow the 

licensee use of M5TM cladding fuel 

assemblies into the core of HNP Unit 1. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

January 19, 2011. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed exemption is needed to 

allow the licensee the use of M5TM alloy 

fuel rod cladding at HNP. The licensee 

has requested an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 

appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 to allow 

for loading of M5TM clad fuel 

assemblies, in lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO, 

into the core during Refueling Outage 17 

that is currently scheduled for spring 

2012. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its evaluation 

of the proposed action and concludes 

that there are no environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed 

exemption. The details of the NRC 

staff’s safety evaluation will be provided 

in the exemption that, if approved by 

the NRC, will be issued as part of the 

letter to the licensee approving the 

exemption to the regulation. 

The proposed action will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. No changes 

are being made in the types of effluents 

that may be released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in the amount of 

any effluent released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Therefore, 

there are no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

With regard to potential 

nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not result in changes to land 

use or water use, or result in changes to 

the quality or quantity of 

nonradiological effluents. No changes to 

the National Pollutant 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 Magnuson-Stevens Act 

are expected. No impacts to the air or 

ambient air quality are expected. There 

are no impacts to historic and cultural 

resources. In addition, there are also no 

known socioeconomic or environmental 

justice impacts associated with the 

proposed action. Therefore, there are no 

significant nonradiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no 

action’’ 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 ECCS rules in 10 CFR 

50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 

and would not be able to use M5TM clad 

fuel in the HNP core during the 

upcoming refueling outage. 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 HNP, NUREG–0972, dated 

October 31, 1983, as supplemented 

through the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Shearon 

Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1— 

Final Report (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 33).’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on January 19, 2012 the NRC staff 

consulted with the North Carolina State 

official, Mr. Lee Cox of the Division of 

Radiation Protection, with the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State official had no 

comments. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

III. 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. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action are 

available electronically at the NRC 

Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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. For further details with 

respect to the proposed action, see the 

licensee’s letter dated January 19, 2011, 

located under ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11313A162. 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

These documents 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 6th day 

of February 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Araceli T. Billoch Colo ́n, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 

2–2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3521 Filed 2–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0278; Docket No.: 50–286] 

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC.; 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3; 

Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

(Entergy or the licensee) is the holder of 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–64, 

which authorizes operation of Indian 

Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (IP3). 

The license provides, among other 

things, that the facility is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. 

IP3 is a pressurized-water reactor 

located approximately 24 miles north of 

the New York City boundary line on the 

east bank of the Hudson River in 

Westchester County, New York. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 50.48(b), requires 

that nuclear power plants that were 

licensed to operate before January 1, 

1979, satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix R, ‘‘Fire Protection 

Program for Nuclear Power Facilities 

Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,’’ 

Section III.G, ‘‘Fire protection of safe 

shutdown capability.’’ The circuit 

separation and protection requirements 

being addressed in this request for 

exemption are specified in Section 

III.G.2. Since IP3 was licensed to 

operate before January 1, 1979, IP3 is 

required to meet Section III.G.2 of 

Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50. 

The underlying purpose of Section 

III.G of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 

is to establish reasonable assurance that 

safe shutdown (SSD) of the reactor can 

be achieved and maintained in the event 

of a postulated fire in any plant area. 

Circuits which could cause 

maloperation or prevent operation of 

redundant trains of equipment required 

to achieve and maintain hot shutdown 

conditions as a result of fire in a single 

fire area must be protected in 

accordance with III.G.2. If conformance 

with the technical requirements of 

III.G.2 cannot be assured in a specific 

fire area, an alternative or dedicated 

shutdown capability must be provided 

in accordance with Section III.G.3, or an 

exemption obtained in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions.’’ 

By letter dated March 6, 2009, Entergy 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix R in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.12. Specifically, Entergy requested an 

exemption to allow the use of Operator 

Manual Actions (OMAs) in lieu of 

meeting certain technical requirements 

of III.G.2 in Fire Areas AFW–6, ETN– 

4{1}, ETN–4{3}, PAB–2{3}, PAB–2{5}, 

TBL–5, and YARD–7. The table below 

provides the dates and topics of the 

submittals related to this request. 

Subject Author Date Description ADAMS 

accession 

Exemption Request 

from Appendix R.

Entergy ....................... March 6, 2009 ............ Original Submittal ........................................... ML090760993

Revised Exemption 

Request.

Entergy ....................... October 1, 2009 ......... Revision to March 2009, submittal, incorporated changes to Attachment 2, Technical Basis in Support of Exemption Request.ML092810230 

Request for Additional 

Information (RAI) #1.

NRC ........................... January 20, 2010 ....... Request for information on the overall defense-in-depth for each fire zone.ML100150128 

RAI Response #1 ...... Entergy ....................... May 4, 2010 ............... Response to the staff’s January 20, 2010, 

RAI.

ML101320263 

RAI #2 ........................ NRC ........................... August 11, 2010 ........ RAI on reactor coolant system makeup, separation distances, etc.ML102180331 

RAI Response #2 ...... Entergy ....................... September 29, 2010 .. Response to the staff’s August 11, 2010, 

RAI.

ML102930234 

RAI #3 ........................ NRC ........................... December 16, 2010 ... RAI on reactor coolant system makeup ........ ML103500204 

RAI Response #3 ...... Entergy ....................... January 19, 2011 ....... Responses to the staff’s December 16, 

2010, RAI.

ML110310242 

Letter to revise previously submitted information.Entergy ....................... February 10, 2011 ..... Letter updating tables contained in previous 

submittals.

ML110540322 

Letter to revise previously submitted information.Entergy ....................... May 26, 2011 ............. Letter updating tables contained in previous 

submittals.

ML11158A196 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES