Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 3761 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrea D. Valentin, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1197 Filed 1–21–10; 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; 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 a certain new 

requirement of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Renewed Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–57 and 

NPF–5, issued to Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, the 

licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. 

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

(HNP), located in Appling County, 

Georgia. In accordance with 10 CFR 

51.21, the NRC prepared an 

environmental assessment documenting 

its finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed actions will have no 

significant environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

HNP from the required implementation 

date of March 31, 2010, for a certain 

new requirement of 10 CFR part 73. 

Specifically, HNP would be granted an 

exemption from being in full 

compliance with a certain new 

requirement contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010, deadline. SNC 

has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of 

December 6, 2010, approximately 8 

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 HNP 

site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 6, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated November 20, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to perform upgrades to the HNP 

security system due to procurement, 

resource, and logistical impacts, 

including the spring 2010 Unit 1 

refueling outage and other factors. 

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 13967). 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. 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, 13967 (March 27, 2009)]. 

The licensee currently maintains a 

security program acceptable to the NRC 

and the new 10 CFR part 73 security 

measures that will be implemented by 

March 31, 2010, will continue to 

provide acceptable physical protection 

of the HNP. Therefore, the extension of 

the implementation date for the 

specified new requirement of 10 CFR 

part 73, to December 6, 2010, would not 

have any significant environmental 

impacts. 

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 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 the HNP, dated October 

1972, as supplemented through the 

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2—Final Report 

(NUREG—1437, Supplement 4).’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on January 5, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Georgia State 

official, Mr. Jim Hardeman of the 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
3762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated November 6, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated November 

20, 2009. Portions of the submittals 

contain proprietary and security 

information and, accordingly, are not 

available to the public pursuant to 10 

CFR 2.390. The public 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 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Donna N. Wright, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 

1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1182 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328; NRC– 

2010–0021] 

Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; 

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 Facility Operating 

License Nos. DPR–77 and DPR–79, 

issued to Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA, the licensee), for operation of the 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

(SQN), located in Hamilton County, 

Tennessee. In accordance with 10 CFR 

51.21, ‘‘Criteria for and identification of 

licensing and regulatory actions 

requiring environmental assessments,’’ 

the NRC prepared an environmental 

assessment documenting its finding. 

The NRC concluded that the proposed 

action will have no significant 

environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

the TVA from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for several new requirements of 10 CFR 

part 73. Specifically, SQN would be 

granted an exemption from being in full 

compliance with certain new 

requirements contained in 10 CFR 

73.55, ‘‘Requirements for physical 

protection of licensed activities in 

nuclear power reactors against 

radiological sabotage,’’ by the March 31, 

2010, deadline (74 FR 13935, March 27, 

2009). TVA has proposed an alternate 

full compliance implementation date of 

September 24, 2012, approximately two 

and half years 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 SQN site 

that were not previously considered in 

the environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact made by 

the Commission in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009). 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 6, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 11, 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 SQN security system because they 

involve new components and 

engineering that cannot be obtained or 

completed by the March 31, 2010, 

implementation date. 

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 (74 FR 

13967). 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 licensee currently maintains a 

security system acceptable to the NRC 

and will continue to provide acceptable 

physical protection of SQN as TVA 

implements certain new requirements in 

10 CFR part 73. Therefore, the extension 

of the implementation date of the new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to 

September 24, 2012, would not have 

any significant environmental impacts. 

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 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES