Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 57899-57900 [05-19921]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices maintaining employee’s exposuremonitoring and medical records for specific periods, and providing access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the affected employees, and designated representatives. Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection Title: Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels (29 CFR 1910.177). OMB Number: 1218–0219 Frequency: On occasion. Type of Response: Recordkeeping and third party disclosure. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, Local, or Tribal Government. Number of Respondents: 8. Number of Annual Responses: 8. Estimated Time Per Response: 3 minutes. Total Burden Hours: 1. Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0. Total Annual Costs (operating/ maintaining systems or purchasing services): $0. Description: The purpose of 29 CFR 1910.177 is to reduce employees’ risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that restraining devices used by them during the servicing of multi-piece rim wheels are in safe operating condition. Specifically, the certification records required by paragraph (d)(3)(iv) are used to assure that equipment has been repaired properly. The certification records also provide the most efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard. Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection. Title: Telecommunications (Training Certification Records) (29 CFR 1910.268(c)). OMB Number: 1218–0225. Frequency: On occasion. Type of Response: Recordkeeping and third party disclosure. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, Local, or Tribal Government Number of Respondents: 651 Number of Annual Responses: 140,050 Estimated Time Per Response: 2 minutes Total Burden Hours: 4,202 Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Oct 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 57899 Total Annual Costs (operating/ maintaining systems or purchasing services): $0 Description: The Telecommunications Standard at 29 CFR 1910.268(c) specifies one information collection requirement. The following section describes who uses the information collected under the requirement as well as how they use it. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that employees have been trained as required by the Standard to prevent risk of death or serious injury. Training (paragraph (c)). Under the paperwork requirement specified by paragraph (c) of the Standard, employers must certify that his or her employees have been trained as specified by the performance-language training provision of the Standard. Specifically, employers must prepare a certification record which includes the identity of the person trained, the signature of the employer or the person who conducted the training, and the date the training was completed. The certification record shall be prepared at the completion of training and shall be maintained on file for the duration of the employee’s employment. The information collected would be used by employers as well as compliance officers to determine whether employees have been trained according to the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.268(c). operability requirements in TS 3/4.1.3, ‘‘Control Rods.’’ Specifically, one of the proposed changes would have eliminated consideration of control rod drive water pressure in the action statement of TS 3.1.3.1.b.1.b. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29794). However, by letter dated September 20, 2005, the licensee withdrew the abovereferenced proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 22, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated December 3, 2004, and September 20, 2005. 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 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publiclyavailable records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 05–19795 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Travis L. Tate, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05–19789 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–26–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353] Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has granted the request of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw a portion of its July 22, 2004, application and the December 3, 2004, and September 20, 2005, supplements for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 39 and NPF–85 for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) pertaining to the PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–255] Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 68, ‘‘Criticality Accident Requirements,’’ Subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating License No. DPR–20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (NMC), for operation of the E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 57900 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan. 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 exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68, ‘‘Criticality Accident Requirements,’’ Subsection (b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in the Palisades’ spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC’s application of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. The Need for the Proposed Action Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of detecting criticality events: Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by unborated water. Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are met. NMC stated in its August 25, 2005, letter that applying the 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) criticality prevention standards to dry shielded canister loading operations, conducted in connection with a 10 CFR part 72 license would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that if the exemption described above is not granted, it would result in an undue hardship. The details of 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. 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 offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent release off site. There is no VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Oct 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 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. Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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 at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 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. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant dated February 1978. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on October 25 and 26, 2005. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public sessions includes: (1) Discussion of the Energy policy Act of 2005, which provides for NRC regulation of accelerator-produced radioactive material and discrete sources of Ra-226; (2) Status of Specialty Board applications for NRC recognition; (3) Electronic signature in written directives; (4) Revision of NRC Form 313A; (5) RIS on dose control and assessment; (6) Review of the medical events definition commission paper. To review the agenda, see http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/acmui/agenda/ or contact, via e-mail mss@nrc.gov. Purpose: Discuss issues related to 10 CFR 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material. Date and Time for Closed Session Meeting: October 25, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. This session will be closed so that NRC staff can brief the ACMUI on discussing information relating solely to internal personnel rules. Dates and Times for Public Meetings: October 25, 2005, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and October 26, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Address for Public Meetings: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, Room Agencies and Persons Consulted On September 30, 2005, the staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Mary Ann Elzerman, of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 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 NMC’s letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05–19921 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Updated notice of meeting. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57899-57900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19921]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-255]


Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 68, ``Criticality 
Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (NMC), for 
operation of the

[[Page 57900]]

Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan. 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 exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) 
during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 
72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in the Palisades' 
spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's 
application of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following 
requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of 
detecting criticality events:

    Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any 
one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be 
safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions 
feasible by unborated water.

    Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary 
to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are 
met. NMC stated in its August 25, 2005, letter that applying the 10 CFR 
50.68(b)(1) criticality prevention standards to dry shielded canister 
loading operations, conducted in connection with a 10 CFR part 72 
license would result in undue hardship or other costs that are 
significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was 
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by 
others similarly situated.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that if the exemption described above is not granted, it 
would result in an undue hardship. The details of 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.
    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 offsite. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent release 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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Addendum to the Final 
Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Palisades Nuclear 
Plant dated February 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On September 30, 2005, the staff consulted with the Michigan State 
official, Mary Ann Elzerman, of the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality, 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 NMC's 
letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 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 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 at 1-800-
397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-19921 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P