Carolina Power & Light Company; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 80545-80546 [2010-32142]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. NUREG–1953 is
available electronically under ADAMS
Accession Number ML102940233.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0344.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Helton, Division of Risk
Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001. Telephone: 301–251–7594, e-mail:
Donald.Helton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NUREG–
1953, ‘‘Confirmatory Thermal-Hydraulic
Analysis to Support Specific Success
Criteria in the Standardized Plant
Analysis Risk Models—Surry and Peach
Bottom, Draft Report for Comment,’’
investigates specific thermal-hydraulic
aspects of the Surry and Peach Bottom
Standardized Plant Analysis Risk
models, with the goal of further
strengthening the technical basis for
decisionmaking that relies on the SPAR
models. This analysis employs the
MELCOR computer code to analyze a
number of scenarios with different
assumptions.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of December, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kevin A. Coyne,
Chief, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch,
Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 2010–32140 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. 50–261; NRC–2010–0062]
Carolina Power & Light Company;
H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
implementation date for certain new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. DPR–23, issued to Carolina
Power & Light Company (the licensee),
for operation of the H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBRSEP),
located in Darlington County, South
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.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for one specific requirement of 10 CFR
Part 73. Specifically, HBRSEP would be
granted a second exemption, further
extending the date for full compliance
with one remaining item of the
requirements contained in 10 CFR
73.55, from December 30, 2010, (the
date specified in a prior exemption
granted by NRC on March 3, 2010), until
September 16, 2011. The proposed
action, an extension of the schedule for
completion of certain actions required
by the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not
result in any additional physical
changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or
land at the HBRSEP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
September 30, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time, beyond the date granted by the
NRC letter dated March 3, 2010, to
implement one remaining item of the
two requirements in the previous
exemption that involves important
physical modifications to the HBRSEP
security system. The licensee has
performed an extensive evaluation of
the revised 10 CFR Part 73 and has
achieved compliance with a vast
majority of the revised rule by the
March 31, 2010, compliance date.
However, the licensee has determined
that implementation of one specific
provisions of the rule will require more
time to implement because they involve
upgrades to the security system that
require significant physical
modifications (e.g., the relocation of
certain security assets to a new security
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80545
building that will be constructed, and
the addition of certain power supplies).
There are several issues which have
delayed the work to this point and
impacted the projected schedule: (1)
The complexity of the design and
construction of the projects which lead
to unforeseen scope growth; (2) a better
understanding of the time necessary for
transition and testing for the new
systems; and (3) due to a fire in an
electrical switchgear room, the spring
refueling outage was extended beyond
that originally anticipated when
schedules were first developed. These
issues were revealed as the design
evolved from the conceptual state to a
detailed design. Additional time,
beyond that previously approved, is
needed due the extensive redesign and
review effort that was unforeseen at the
conceptual design stage.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and 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 or
consequences of an accident.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
80546
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With its request to extend the
implementation deadline, the licensee
currently maintains a security system
acceptable to the NRC and that will
continue to provide acceptable physical
protection of HBRSEP in lieu of the new
requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, the extension of the
implementation date for one element of
the new requirements of 10 CFR Part 73
to September 16, 2011, would not have
any significant environmental impacts.
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided as part of a 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 existing
implementation deadline of December
30, 2010, for one remaining item of the
two requirements, as granted on March
3, 2010. The environmental impacts of
the proposed exemption and the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative are similar.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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 HBRSEP, dated April
1975, as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2—Final Report
(NUREG—1437, Supplement 13).’’
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on December 15, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the South Carolina State
official, Susan Jenkins of the South
Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste
Management, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 September 30, 2010. Portions of
the September 30, 2010, submittal
contain proprietary and security-related
information, and accordingly, a redacted
version of this letter is available for
public review in the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), Accession No.
ML102770306. This document 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
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 16th day
of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–32142 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[ Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC–
2010–0283]
Virginia Electric and Power Company;
Surry Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2;
Exemption
Background
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(the licensee) is the holder of Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR–32 and
DPR–37 which authorizes operation of
the Surry Power Station (SURRY) Unit
Nos. 1 and 2. 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, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2.0
Request/Action
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section
50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ the
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(VEPCO), by letter dated February 10,
2010,1 requested an exemption from
certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46,
‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems [ECCS] for light-water
nuclear power reactors,’’ and Appendix
K to 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation
Models’’ (Appendix K). The regulations
in 10 CFR 50.46 contain acceptance
criteria for the ECCS for reactors fueled
with zircaloy or ZIRLOTM cladding. In
addition, Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50
requires that the Baker-Just equation be
used to predict the rates of energy
release, hydrogen concentration, and
cladding oxidation from the metal/water
reaction. The Baker-Just equation
assumed the use of a zirconium alloy
different than Optimized ZIRLOTM. The
exemption request relates solely to the
specific types of cladding material
specified in these regulations. As
written, the regulations presume the use
of zircaloy or ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding. Thus, an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K is needed to support the
use of different fuel rod cladding
material. Therefore, the licensee
requested an exemption that would
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM
fuel rod cladding at SURRY. The NRC
staff will prepare a separate safety
evaluation, fully addressing VEPCO’s
application for a related license
amendment.
3.0
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
1.0
The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Surry County,
Virginia.
Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to public
health or safety, and are consistent with
the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are
present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2),
special circumstances include, among
other things, when application of the
specific regulation in the particular
circumstance would not serve, or is not
necessary to achieve, the underlying
purpose of the rule.
1 VEPCO letter to NRC, Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML100470738.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80545-80546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32142]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261; NRC-2010-0062]
Carolina Power & Light Company; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 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 No. DPR-23, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (the
licensee), for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit 2 (HBRSEP), located in Darlington County, South 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.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for one specific requirement of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, HBRSEP would be granted a second
exemption, further extending the date for full compliance with one
remaining item of the requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55, from
December 30, 2010, (the date specified in a prior exemption granted by
NRC on March 3, 2010), until September 16, 2011. The proposed action,
an extension of the schedule for completion of certain actions required
by the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not result in any additional
physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, support
structures, water, or land at the HBRSEP site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated September 30, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time, beyond the date granted by the NRC letter dated March
3, 2010, to implement one remaining item of the two requirements in the
previous exemption that involves important physical modifications to
the HBRSEP security system. The licensee has performed an extensive
evaluation of the revised 10 CFR Part 73 and has achieved compliance
with a vast majority of the revised rule by the March 31, 2010,
compliance date. However, the licensee has determined that
implementation of one specific provisions of the rule will require more
time to implement because they involve upgrades to the security system
that require significant physical modifications (e.g., the relocation
of certain security assets to a new security building that will be
constructed, and the addition of certain power supplies). There are
several issues which have delayed the work to this point and impacted
the projected schedule: (1) The complexity of the design and
construction of the projects which lead to unforeseen scope growth; (2)
a better understanding of the time necessary for transition and testing
for the new systems; and (3) due to a fire in an electrical switchgear
room, the spring refueling outage was extended beyond that originally
anticipated when schedules were first developed. These issues were
revealed as the design evolved from the conceptual state to a detailed
design. Additional time, beyond that previously approved, is needed due
the extensive redesign and review effort that was unforeseen at the
conceptual design stage.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and 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 or
consequences of an accident.
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-Stevens 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
[[Page 80546]]
impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With its request to extend the implementation deadline, the
licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC
and that will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of
HBRSEP in lieu of the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73. Therefore,
the extension of the implementation date for one element of the new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to September 16, 2011, would not have
any significant environmental impacts.
The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided as part of a
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 existing implementation deadline of
December 30, 2010, for one remaining item of the two requirements, as
granted on March 3, 2010. 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 HBRSEP,
dated April 1975, as supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2--Final Report (NUREG--1437, Supplement
13).''
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 15, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Susan Jenkins
of the South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste Management, 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 September 30, 2010. Portions of the September
30, 2010, submittal contain proprietary and security-related
information, and accordingly, a redacted version of this letter is
available for public review in the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML102770306. This document 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 O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the 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 16th day of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-32142 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
