Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 10417-10418 [05-4068]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
corrected to read from ‘‘October 12,
2004,’’ to ‘‘October 21, 2004’’.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 25th
day of February 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Howe,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV,
Division of Licensing Project Management,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05–4069 Filed 3–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–321, 50–366, 50–348, 50–
364, 50–424, and 50–425]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 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 from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) part 50, appendix E, and from 10
CFR 50.47(b)(3) for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR–57, NPF–5, NPF–2,
NPF–8, NPF–68, and NPF–81, issued to
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2 (Hatch), Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley), and Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
(Vogtle), respectively. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is
issuing this environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would provide
an exemption from the requirements of
10 CFR part 50, appendix E, and 10 CFR
50.47(b)(3) to permit the licensee to
relocate the near-site emergency
operations facilities (EOFs) for each
plant identified above to a common EOF
located at the licensee’s corporate
headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama.
The need for the proposed exemption
was identified by the NRC staff during
its review of the licensee’s request for
approval to relocate the EOFs dated
October 16, 2003.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides relief
from the requirements that (1) adequate
provisions shall be made and described
for emergency facilities and equipment,
including a licensee near-site EOF from
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
which effective direction can be given
and effective control can be exercised
during an emergency, and (2) that
arrangements to accommodate State and
local staff at the licensee’s near-site EOF
have been made. The licensee proposed
to locate the EOFs in Birmingham, AL,
which is 11⁄2 to 21⁄2 times farther than
any previous NRC-approved distance.
At this distance, the NRC staff believes
that it cannot reasonably consider the
proposed location to be ‘‘near-site.’’
Therefore, the NRC staff determined that
an exemption to the regulations that
require an EOF to be near-site is
required prior to consolidation of the
near-site EOFs in Birmingham, AL. In
order to ensure that NRC actions are
timely, effective, and efficient, the staff
is issuing an exemption under 10 CFR
50.12.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes, as set forth below, that there
are no significant environmental
impacts associated with relocating the
Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle near-site EOFs
to a common EOF located in
Birmingham, AL.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore,
there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10417
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the following documents:
‘‘Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,’’ dated October
1972; ‘‘Final Environmental Statement
related to the operation of the Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2,’’ dated
March 1978; ‘‘Final Environmental
Statement related to the operation of the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2,’’ dated December 1974; and
‘‘Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,’’
NUREG–1087, dated December 1985.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on November 17, 2004, the staff
consulted with the Alabama State
official, Kirk Whatley of the Office of
Radiation Control, Alabama Department
of Public Health, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action for Farley. In addition, on
November 18, 2004, the staff consulted
with the Georgia State official, James
Hardeman, of the Department of Natural
Resources, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action for Vogtle
and Hatch. Neither State official had
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 October 16, 2003, as
supplemented by letters dated April 15
and August 16, 2004. 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 O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents 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.
(Note: Public access to ADAMS has
been temporarily suspended so that
security reviews of publicly available
documents may be performed and
potentially sensitive information
removed. Please check the NRC Web
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
10418
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
site for updates on the resumption of
ADAMS Access.) 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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of February.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Gratton,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05–4068 Filed 3–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
[Docket No. MC2005–2; Order No. 1431]
Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice and order on new
negotiated service agreement case.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document establishes a
docket for consideration of the Postal
Service’s request for approval of a
negotiated service agreement with HSBC
North America Holdings Inc. It
identifies key elements of the proposed
agreement, its relationship to the Capital
One Services, Inc. negotiated service
agreement, and addresses preliminary
procedural matters.
DATES: Key dates are:
1. March 16, 2005: Deadline for filing
notices of intervention.
2. March 18, 2005: Deadline for filing
statements on need for hearing,
objections to limiting issues, and
objections to rule 196 [39 CFR 3001.196]
procuedures.
3. March 24, 2005: Prehearing
conference (10 a.m.), followed
immediately by a settlement conference.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel,
at 202–789–6818.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Procedural History
Capital One Services, Inc. Negotiated
Service Agreement, 67 FR 61355
(September 30, 2002).
Negotiated Service Agreement
Proposed Rule, 68 FR 52546 (September
4, 2003).
Negotiated Service Agreement Final
Rule, 69 FR 7574 (February 19, 2004).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Negotiated Service Agreement
Proposed Rule, 70 FR 7704 (February
15, 2005).
On February 23, 2005, the United
States Postal Service filed a request
seeking a recommended decision from
the Postal Rate Commission approving a
Negotiated Service Agreement with
HSBC North America Holdings Inc.1
The Negotiated Service Agreement is
proffered as functionally equivalent to
the Capital One Services, Inc.
Negotiated Service Agreement (baseline
agreement) as recommended by the
Commission in Docket No. MC2002–2.
The Request, which includes six
attachments, was filed pursuant to
chapter 36 of the Postal Reorganization
Act, 39 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.2
The Postal Service has identified
HSBC North America Holdings Inc.
(HSBC), along with itself, as parties to
the Negotiated Service Agreement. This
identification serves as notice of
intervention by HSBC. It also indicates
that HSBC shall be considered a coproponent, procedurally and
substantively, of the Postal Service’s
Request during the Commission’s
review of the Negotiated Service
Agreement. Rule 191(b) (39 CFR
3001.191(b)). An appropriate Notice of
Appearance and Filing of Testimony as
Co-Proponent by HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., February 23, 2005, also
was filed.
In support of the direct case, the
Postal Service has filed Direct
Testimony of Jessica A. Dauer on Behalf
of the United States Postal Service,
February 23, 2005 (USPS–T–1). HSBC
has separately filed Direct Testimony of
John H. Harvey on Behalf of HSBC
North America Holdings Inc., February
23, 2005 (HSBC–T–1). The Postal
Service has reviewed the HSBC
testimony and, in accordance with rule
192(b) (39 CFR 3001.192(b)), states that
such testimony may be relied upon in
presentation of the Postal Service’s
direct case.3
1 Request of the United States Postal Service for
a Recommended Decision on Classifications, Rates
and Fees to Implement a Functionally Equivalent
Negotiated Service Agreement with HSBC North
America Holdings Inc., February 23, 2005 (Request).
2 Attachments A and B to the Request contain
proposed changes to the Domestic Mail
Classification Schedule and the associated rate
schedules; Attachment C is a certification required
by Commission rule 193(i) specifying that the cost
statements and supporting data submitted by the
Postal Service, which purport to reflect the books
of the Postal Service, accurately set forth the results
shown by such books; Attachment D is an index of
testimony and exhibits; Attachment E is a
compliance statement addressing satisfaction of
various filing requirements; and Attachment F is a
copy of the Negotiated Service Agreement.
3 Request at 2–3, fn. 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Request relies substantially on
record evidence entered in the baseline
docket, Docket No. MC2002–2. The
Postal Service’s Compliance Statement,
Request Attachment E, identifies the
baseline docket material on which it
proposes to rely.
Requests that are proffered as
functionally equivalent to baseline
Negotiated Service Agreements are
handled expeditiously, until a final
determination has been made as to their
proper status. The Postal Service’s
Compliance Statement, Request
Attachment E, is noteworthy in that it
provides valuable information to
facilitate rapid review of the Request to
aid participants in evaluating whether
or not the procedural path suggested by
the Postal Service is appropriate.
The Postal Service submitted several
contemporaneous related filings with its
Request. The Postal Service has filed a
proposal for limitation of issues in this
docket.4 Rule 196(a)(6) (39 CFR
3001.196(a)(6)). The proposal identifies
issues that were previously decided in
the baseline docket, and key issues that
are unique to the instant Request.
Rule 196(b) (39 CFR 3001.196(b))
requires the Postal Service to provide
written notice of its Request, either by
hand delivery or by First-Class Mail, to
all participants of the baseline docket,
MC2002–2. This requirement provides
additional time, due to an abbreviated
intervention period, for the most likely
participants to decide whether or not to
intervene. A copy of the Postal Service’s
notice was filed with the Commission
on February 23, 2005.5
The Postal Service has filed a
conditional request to establish
settlement procedures.6 The Postal
Service believes that there is a distinct
possibility that no party will identify
any need for a hearing, thus there would
be no need to engage in settlement
discussions. However, if the parties do
have issues that they want to explore,
settlement discussions might provide a
convenient forum to resolve those
issues.
The Postal Service’s Request, the
accompanying testimonies of witnesses
Dauer (USPS–T–1) and Harvey (HSBC–
T–1), the baseline Docket No. MC2002–
2 material, and other related material
are available for inspection at the
4 United States Postal Service Proposal for
Limitation of Issues, February 23, 2005.
5 Notice of the United States Postal Service
Concerning the Filing of a Request for a
Recommended Decision on a Functionally
Equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement, February
23, 2005.
6 Conditional Request of the United States Postal
Service for Establishment of Settlement Procedures,
February 23, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 41 (Thursday, March 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10417-10418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4068]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366, 50-348, 50-364, 50-424, and 50-425]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
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 from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, appendix E, and from 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3)
for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57, NPF-5, NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-
68, and NPF-81, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the
licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2 (Hatch), Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley),
and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle),
respectively. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is
issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would provide an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) to
permit the licensee to relocate the near-site emergency operations
facilities (EOFs) for each plant identified above to a common EOF
located at the licensee's corporate headquarters in Birmingham,
Alabama.
The need for the proposed exemption was identified by the NRC staff
during its review of the licensee's request for approval to relocate
the EOFs dated October 16, 2003.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides relief from the requirements that (1)
adequate provisions shall be made and described for emergency
facilities and equipment, including a licensee near-site EOF from which
effective direction can be given and effective control can be exercised
during an emergency, and (2) that arrangements to accommodate State and
local staff at the licensee's near-site EOF have been made. The
licensee proposed to locate the EOFs in Birmingham, AL, which is 1\1/2\
to 2\1/2\ times farther than any previous NRC-approved distance. At
this distance, the NRC staff believes that it cannot reasonably
consider the proposed location to be ``near-site.'' Therefore, the NRC
staff determined that an exemption to the regulations that require an
EOF to be near-site is required prior to consolidation of the near-site
EOFs in Birmingham, AL. In order to ensure that NRC actions are timely,
effective, and efficient, the staff is issuing an exemption under 10
CFR 50.12.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with relocating the Hatch, Farley, and
Vogtle near-site EOFs to a common EOF located in Birmingham, AL.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the following documents: ``Final Environmental
Statement related to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1,'' dated October 1972; ``Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2,'' dated
March 1978; ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of
the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' dated December
1974; and ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' NUREG-1087,
dated December 1985.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 17, 2004, the
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Kirk Whatley of the
Office of Radiation Control, Alabama Department of Public Health,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action for Farley.
In addition, on November 18, 2004, the staff consulted with the Georgia
State official, James Hardeman, of the Department of Natural Resources,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action for Vogtle
and Hatch. Neither State official had 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 October 16, 2003, as supplemented by letters
dated April 15 and August 16, 2004. 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 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.
(Note: Public access to ADAMS has been temporarily suspended so that
security reviews of publicly available documents may be performed and
potentially sensitive information removed. Please check the NRC Web
[[Page 10418]]
site for updates on the resumption of ADAMS Access.) 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 by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of February.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Gratton,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-4068 Filed 3-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
