Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 3761-3762 [2010-1182]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3761
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
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
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: https://
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]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:43 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3761-3762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1182]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Magnuson-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, 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 ``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 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
[[Page 3762]]
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: https://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
