Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 3943-3944 [2010-1307]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices
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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3943
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: 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 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.
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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: 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. 2010–1307 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3943-3944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1307]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 3944]]
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 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 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 ``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 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: 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. 2010-1307 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
