[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80545-80546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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, 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 [email protected].
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