Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices 3943 

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 30, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated December 16, 2009. 

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 HNP security system due to the need 

to design, resource, construct, and test 

three significant physical modifications 

to the current site security 

configuration, as well as 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 (FR) 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 MagnusonStevens 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 through 13967, dated 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). If the proposed 

action was denied, the licensee would 

have to comply with the March 31, 

2010, implementation deadline. Denial 

of the exemption request would result 

in no change in current environmental 

impacts. Therefore, 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 December 18, 2009, the NRC staff 

consulted with the North Carolina State 

official, Ms. Beverly Hall 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. 

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 November 30, 2009, as 

supplemented by letter dated December 

16, 2009. Attachment 1 to the licensee’s 

November 30, 2009 letter, as well as the 

December 16, 2009 letter in its entirety 

contain security-related information 

and, accordingly, are not available to the 

public. Other parts of these 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 14th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Marlayna Vaaler, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2– 

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1299 Filed 1–22–10; 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; 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. NPF–68 and 

NPF–81, issued to Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, the 

licensee), for operation of the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 

(VEGP), located in Burke 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
3944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

the VEGP from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for a certain new requirement of 10 CFR 

Part 73. Specifically, VEGP 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, implementation 

deadline. SNC has proposed an alternate 

full compliance implementation date of 

September 27, 2010, approximately 6 

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 VEGP 

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 VEGP 

security system due to procurement, 

resource, and logistical impacts, 

including the spring 2010 Unit 2 

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 VEGP. Therefore, the extension of 

the implementation date for the 

specified new requirement of 10 CFR 

Part 73, to September 27, 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 

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 VEGP, NUREG—1087, 

dated March 1985, as supplemented 

through the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2—Final 

Report (NUREG—1437, Supplement 

34).’’ 

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 

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. 2010–1307 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES