Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 50948-50949 [E6-14202]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50948
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Notices
the size of the barrier around them. The
petitioner proposes to use the following
procedures when plugging oil and gas
wells: (1) Clean out and prepare oil and
gas wells prior to plugging; (2) Plug oil
and gas wells to the surface by setting
a cement plug in the wellbore by
pumping expanding cement slurry
down the tubing to displace the gel and
fill the borehole to the surface, and
embed steel or other magnetic particles
in the top of the cement to serve as a
magnetic monument; (3) Plug oil and
gas wells using the vent pipe method;
and (4) Plug oil and gas wells for use as
degasification boreholes by setting a
cement plug and a degasification casing.
The petitioner states that whenever the
safety barrier diameter is reduced to a
distance less than what the District
Manager would approve pursuant to
Section 75.1700, or proceeds with the
intent to cut through a plugged well,
additional cut-through procedures
would apply. These procedures would
include submitting a mining plan to the
District Manager or designee for
approval for each well to be intersected
or where the barrier required by Section
75.1700 will be reduced. The details of
these procedures can be requested from
MSHA’s Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, Room 2350,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
Virginia 22209 via mail, or by phone,
contact Barbara Barron at 202–693–
9447. The petitioner asserts that the
proposed alternative method would
provide at least the same measure of
protection as the existing standard.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Request for Comments
Persons interested in these petitions
are encouraged to submit comments by
any of the following methods: via Email: zzMSHA-Comments@dol.gov.
Include ‘‘petitions for modification’’ in
the subject line of the email; Fax: (202)
693–9441. Include ‘‘petitions for
modification in the subject line of the
fax; or Regular Mail/Hand Delivery/
Courier: Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100
Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209. If handdelivered in person or by courier, please
stop by the 21st floor first to check in
with the receptionist before continuing
on to the 23rd floor. All comments must
be postmarked or received in that office
on or before September 27, 2006. Copies
of these petitions are available for
inspection at that address.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:09 Aug 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 21st day
of August 2006.
Patricia W. Silvey,
Acting Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. E6–14258 Filed 8–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–438 and 50–439]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a letter terminating
Construction Permit No. CPPR–122 for
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Unit 1,
and CPPR–123 for BLN, Unit 2, issued
to the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA, permittee). The facility is located
about 6 miles East-Northeast of
Scottsboro, Alabama, on the west shore
of the Guntersville Reservoir at
Tennessee River Mile 392, in Jackson
County, Alabama. This action is in
accordance with the permittee’s request
in a letter dated April 6, 2006, as
supplemented by letter dated June 29,
2006.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is issuance of a
letter that would terminate Construction
Permit No. CPPR–122 for BLN Unit 1
and CPPR–123 for BLN Unit 2.
Canceling construction of the existing
facility and withdrawal of the
construction permits is necessary in
order to close out the existing BLN
project. These actions also facilitate the
consideration of other possible uses of
the BLN site.
Because there are other ongoing
activities on the BLN site (i.e., training
centers for the Transmission Service
Organization and the Tennessee Valley
Public Power Association), and because
the switchyard at BLN is utilized as a
substation for system operations in the
region, TVA would not withdraw
existing environmental permits or
remove equipment associated with these
other activities.
TVA would keep and maintain BLN
in regulatory compliance. Compliance
activities would include National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits, division monitoring reports,
demolition permits, and air permits that
are applicable to the entire site. These
measures would continue as long as
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
TVA has ownership of the BLN site.
Maintaining and complying with these
existing permits and regulations would
ensure the stability of the site, until
such time that TVA may decide, if or
how the site would be alternatively
utilized.
Because so much of the site will be
maintained, the general activities
associated with the redress of the site
are relatively minor in nature. Most of
the minor environmental impacts
resulting from redress would be
associated with removal of equipment
or structures not identified as necessary
for other site activities. Materials and
structures removed would be above
grade or in areas that have experienced
substantial previous ground disturbance
for the original construction of the
plant. TVA currently plans to maintain
such major components as the intake
and discharge facilities, cooling towers,
wastewater system, and transmission
switch yards. The existing containment,
turbine, and auxiliary buildings would
not be demolished. The other structures
not identified as necessary would be
sold, taken apart, and removed from the
site, abandoned in place, or demolished.
Most of these structures are metal and
wood warehouses located along the
western portion of the site. Any
unwanted construction material or
waste associated with disposition of
equipment and structures would be
properly disposed of in appropriately
permitted solid waste or other disposal
facilities in accordance with pertinent
Federal, state, and local laws,
regulations and ordinances, as well as
TVA processes and procedures.
Equipment identified as unnecessary
would have the power disconnected and
would either be reused by other TVA
facilities, sold for reuse, or abandoned
in place. Such items may include, but
are not limited to: valves, strainers,
battery boards and chargers, transfer
switches, vent fans, motors, cabinet
panels, breakers, power systems, shop
equipment such as lathes, air
compressors, and dryers; as well as
other miscellaneous equipment.
Additional materials may include, but
are not limited to items such as: piping,
tubing, conduit, cable, instrumentation,
and general construction materials. TVA
would continue to conduct periodic site
inspections to ensure that none of the
equipment or materials are causing
environmental, health, or safety
problems.
Redress would involve the removal of
diesel generator fuel and lube, or control
fluids from the main turbine lube oil
tanks, feedwater pump lube oil tanks,
reactor coolant pump motors, control
fluid tanks, and diesel generator lube oil
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Notices
sumps. Fuel and lubricant would be
removed, and storage containers would
be closed in accordance with all
applicable Federal, state, or local laws
and regulations.
By letter dated June 29, 2006, the
permitee stated that neither of the units
can be considered a utilization facility
as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. At the time
that construction of the units was
deferred, TVA considered Unit 1 to be
88 percent complete and Unit 2 to be 58
percent complete. At this time, neither
reactor has the necessary structures,
systems, or components in place to
sustain a controlled nuclear reaction.
Over the past several years, key
components such as the control rod
drive mechanisms for both Unit 1 and
2 have been removed from the site,
which precludes the ability of the units
to operate as nuclear reactors. The
current condition of the plants does not
allow operation; therefore, neither plant
can be considered a utilization facility.
All special nuclear material was
removed from the site, as verified in
NRC Inspection Reports 50–438/92–05
and 50–439/92–05 dated August 21,
1992. The only radioactive material to
be disposed of is from the removal of
smoke detectors and exit signs from
various buildings to be sold,
demolished, or abandoned in place.
Upon removal, these materials shall be
sent to an NRC-approved recycler.
Safeguards information has been
shredded or removed. Fenced areas are
currently under industrial-type security.
The withdrawal of the construction
permits will not release air pollutants,
generate water pollutants, generate
wastewater streams, or cause soil
erosion. The BNL site is in an
environmentally stable condition that
poses no significant hazard to persons
on site.
The Need for the Proposed Action
TVA has terminated construction of
both BLN Units 1 and 2. This action by
the NRC would terminate the
construction permits.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This administrative action would
terminate the construction permits to
reflect the fact that there are no longer
utilization facilities under construction
at the BLN site, and that the site has
been adequately stabilized. Accordingly,
the NRC concludes that there are no
significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:09 Aug 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
Environmental Statement for the
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
dated May 24, 1974.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on July 7, 2006, the staff consulted with
the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk
Whatley of the Office of Radiation
Control, Alabama Department of Public
Health, 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 permitee’s
letter dated April 6, 2006, as
supplemented by letter dated June 29,
2006, and TVA’s Final Environmental
Assessment dated January 30, 2006.
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. 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@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of August, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50949
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–14202 Filed 8–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION
September 14, 2006 Public Hearing;
Sunshine Act Meeting 8/28/06
2 p.m., Thursday,
September 14, 2006.
PLACE: Offices of the Corporation,
Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
STATUS: Hearing open to the Public at 2
p.m.
PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction
with each meeting of OPIC’s Board of
Directors, to afford an opportunity for
any person to present views regarding
the activities of the Corporation.
PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to
address the hearing orally must provide
advance notice to OPIC’s Corporate
Secretary no later than 5 p.m., Friday,
September 8, 2006. The notice must
include the individual’s name, title,
organization, address, and telephone
number, and a concise summary of the
subject matter to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten
(10) minutes. The time for individual
presentations may be reduced
proportionately, if necessary, to afford
all participants who have submitted a
timely request to participate an
opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a
written statement for the record must
submit a copy of such statement to
OPIC’s Corporate Secretary no later than
5 p.m., Friday, September 8, 2006. Such
statements must be typewritten, doublespaced, and may not exceed twenty-five
(25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice,
OPIC will prepare an agenda for the
hearing identifying speakers, setting
forth the subject on which each
participant will speak, and the time
allotted for each presentation. The
agenda will be available at the hearing.
A written summary of the hearing will
be compiled, and such summary will be
made available upon written request to
OPIC’s Corporate Secretary, at the cost
of reproduction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information on the hearing may be
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202)
TIME AND DATE:
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50948-50949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14202]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a letter terminating Construction Permit No. CPPR-122 for
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Unit 1, and CPPR-123 for BLN, Unit 2,
issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, permittee). The facility
is located about 6 miles East-Northeast of Scottsboro, Alabama, on the
west shore of the Guntersville Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 392,
in Jackson County, Alabama. This action is in accordance with the
permittee's request in a letter dated April 6, 2006, as supplemented by
letter dated June 29, 2006.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is issuance of a letter that would terminate
Construction Permit No. CPPR-122 for BLN Unit 1 and CPPR-123 for BLN
Unit 2. Canceling construction of the existing facility and withdrawal
of the construction permits is necessary in order to close out the
existing BLN project. These actions also facilitate the consideration
of other possible uses of the BLN site.
Because there are other ongoing activities on the BLN site (i.e.,
training centers for the Transmission Service Organization and the
Tennessee Valley Public Power Association), and because the switchyard
at BLN is utilized as a substation for system operations in the region,
TVA would not withdraw existing environmental permits or remove
equipment associated with these other activities.
TVA would keep and maintain BLN in regulatory compliance.
Compliance activities would include National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits, division monitoring reports, demolition
permits, and air permits that are applicable to the entire site. These
measures would continue as long as TVA has ownership of the BLN site.
Maintaining and complying with these existing permits and regulations
would ensure the stability of the site, until such time that TVA may
decide, if or how the site would be alternatively utilized.
Because so much of the site will be maintained, the general
activities associated with the redress of the site are relatively minor
in nature. Most of the minor environmental impacts resulting from
redress would be associated with removal of equipment or structures not
identified as necessary for other site activities. Materials and
structures removed would be above grade or in areas that have
experienced substantial previous ground disturbance for the original
construction of the plant. TVA currently plans to maintain such major
components as the intake and discharge facilities, cooling towers,
wastewater system, and transmission switch yards. The existing
containment, turbine, and auxiliary buildings would not be demolished.
The other structures not identified as necessary would be sold, taken
apart, and removed from the site, abandoned in place, or demolished.
Most of these structures are metal and wood warehouses located along
the western portion of the site. Any unwanted construction material or
waste associated with disposition of equipment and structures would be
properly disposed of in appropriately permitted solid waste or other
disposal facilities in accordance with pertinent Federal, state, and
local laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as TVA processes and
procedures.
Equipment identified as unnecessary would have the power
disconnected and would either be reused by other TVA facilities, sold
for reuse, or abandoned in place. Such items may include, but are not
limited to: valves, strainers, battery boards and chargers, transfer
switches, vent fans, motors, cabinet panels, breakers, power systems,
shop equipment such as lathes, air compressors, and dryers; as well as
other miscellaneous equipment. Additional materials may include, but
are not limited to items such as: piping, tubing, conduit, cable,
instrumentation, and general construction materials. TVA would continue
to conduct periodic site inspections to ensure that none of the
equipment or materials are causing environmental, health, or safety
problems.
Redress would involve the removal of diesel generator fuel and
lube, or control fluids from the main turbine lube oil tanks, feedwater
pump lube oil tanks, reactor coolant pump motors, control fluid tanks,
and diesel generator lube oil
[[Page 50949]]
sumps. Fuel and lubricant would be removed, and storage containers
would be closed in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, or
local laws and regulations.
By letter dated June 29, 2006, the permitee stated that neither of
the units can be considered a utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR
50.2. At the time that construction of the units was deferred, TVA
considered Unit 1 to be 88 percent complete and Unit 2 to be 58 percent
complete. At this time, neither reactor has the necessary structures,
systems, or components in place to sustain a controlled nuclear
reaction. Over the past several years, key components such as the
control rod drive mechanisms for both Unit 1 and 2 have been removed
from the site, which precludes the ability of the units to operate as
nuclear reactors. The current condition of the plants does not allow
operation; therefore, neither plant can be considered a utilization
facility.
All special nuclear material was removed from the site, as verified
in NRC Inspection Reports 50-438/92-05 and 50-439/92-05 dated August
21, 1992. The only radioactive material to be disposed of is from the
removal of smoke detectors and exit signs from various buildings to be
sold, demolished, or abandoned in place. Upon removal, these materials
shall be sent to an NRC-approved recycler. Safeguards information has
been shredded or removed. Fenced areas are currently under industrial-
type security. The withdrawal of the construction permits will not
release air pollutants, generate water pollutants, generate wastewater
streams, or cause soil erosion. The BNL site is in an environmentally
stable condition that poses no significant hazard to persons on site.
The Need for the Proposed Action
TVA has terminated construction of both BLN Units 1 and 2. This
action by the NRC would terminate the construction permits.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This administrative action would terminate the construction permits
to reflect the fact that there are no longer utilization facilities
under construction at the BLN site, and that the site has been
adequately stabilized. 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 Environmental Statement for
the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 24, 1974.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 7, 2006, the staff
consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk Whatley of the
Office of Radiation Control, Alabama Department of Public Health,
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
permitee's letter dated April 6, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated
June 29, 2006, and TVA's Final Environmental Assessment dated January
30, 2006. 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. 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@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-14202 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
