Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206, 63933-63934 [E7-22093]

Download as PDF rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Notices NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title of Collection: Evaluation of the National Science Foundation-National Institutes for Health Bioengineering and Bioinformatics Summer Institutes (BBSI) Program. OMB Number: 3145–NEW. Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (NIBIB), a new component of the National Institutes of Health, established a jointly funded program run by NSF called the Bioengineering and Bioinformatics Summer Institutes (BBSI) Program to begin creating a supply of professionals trained in bioengineering and bioinformatics. This workforce initiative complements research and education efforts in these fields funded by both agencies and constitutes a high profile effort to meet the anticipated human resource needs for bioengineering and bioinformatics. The program is designed to provide students majoring in the biological sciences, computer sciences, engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences with well-planned interdisciplinary experiences in bioengineering or bioinformatics research and education, in very active ‘Summer Institutes’; thereby increasing the number of young people considering careers in bioengineering and bioinformatics at the graduate level and beyond. NIBIB and NSF’s Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC) wish to learn whether the BBSI Program as originally conceived is achieving its objectives and programlevel outcomes, and to collect lessons learned for improvement of program design and implementation. This shortterm evaluation is expected to provide information on what educational and career decisions have been affected by participation in a Summer Institute, what elements of the students’ BBSI affect student outcomes, and how the program can be improved, e.g., through changes in specific program-wide design components, expected outcomes, proposal review criteria, etc. The survey data collection will be done on the World Wide Web. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:30 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Respondents: Individuals. Estimated Number of Responses: 765. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 387 hours. Frequency of Response: Once. Dated: November 7, 2007. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. 07–5629 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555–01–M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–271; License No. DPR–28] Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated August 27, 2007, the New England Coalition (NEC or the petitioner) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take action with regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The NEC petition requested that NRC promptly restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety that is now degraded by the failure of the licensee and its employees to report adverse conditions leading to a reduction in plant safety margins at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), or otherwise to order a derate or shutdown of Vermont Yankee until it can be determined to what extent Vermont Yankee is being operated in an unanalyzed condition. Specifically, the petition requested the following actions: (1) NRC completion of a Diagnostic Evaluation Team examination or Independent Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition of non-conformances, reportable items, hazards to safety, and the root causes thereof; (2) NRC completion of a safety culture assessment to determine why worker safety concerns were not previously reported and why assessments of safety culture under the Reactor Oversight Process failed to capture the fact or reasons that safety concerns have gone unreported; (3) derate Vermont Yankee to 50% of licensed thermal power with a mandatory hold at 50% until a thorough and detailed structural and performance analysis of the cooling PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63933 towers, including the alternate cooling system, has been completed by the licensee; reviewed and approved by NRC; and until the above steps (1) and (2) have been completed; and (4) NRC investigation and determination of whether or not similar non-conforming conditions and causes exist at other Entergy-run nuclear power plants. As a basis for the request, the petition cited problems related to the inadequate performance of Vermont Yankee Inservice Inspection, Maintenance, Engineering, and Quality Assurance leading to a cooling tower cell collapse coupled with the employees’ assertion of degrading plant conditions inimical to public health. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 2.206 of the Commission’s regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Mr. Raymond Shadis, in his capacity as the petitioner’s Staff Technical Advisor, participated in two telephone conference calls with the NRC’s Petition Review Board (PRB) on September 12, 2007, and October 3, 2007, to discuss the petition and provide any additional explanation in light of the PRB’s initial recommendation. The results of those discussions were considered in the PRB’s determination regarding the petitioner’s request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. The PRB confirmed its initial recommendation to reject action items (1), (2), and (4), which are the diagnostic evaluation team examination, safety culture assessment, and the NRC investigation at other Entergy facilities. These action items were rejected for review under the 2.206 process because these actions are not enforcementrelated. However, the PRB has determined that the petition meets the criteria for review in Management Directive 8.11 with respect to a portion of action item (3). Specifically, the PRB found that the facts presented in the petition related to the cooling tower cell collapse in action (3) were credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry. A copy of the petition and supplement and the transcripts of the telephone conference calls are available for inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and from the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 63934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Notices Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072420194, ML072780363, ML072610466, and ML07830584). 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 6th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J. T. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7–22093 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40–8905] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan License Amendment; Rio Algom Mining LLC, Ambrosia Lake, NM Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McLaughlin, Project Manager, Materials Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–5869; fax number: (301) 415– 5369; e-mail: tgm@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to issue a license amendment of Source Materials License No. SUA–1473 held by Rio Algom Mining LLC (Rio Algom/the licensee), to approve a Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan for its uranium mill tailings site in Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, and has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:30 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 The Ambrosia Lake site is in the Ambrosia Lake mining district of New Mexico, 25 miles north of Grants, New Mexico. Rio Algom began processing ore in 1958, and processed approximately 33 million tons of ore through 1985. The site continued to be an active uranium production facility through December 2002. Site reclamation activities commenced in 1989 with some work on the top surface of the largest tailings cell. There are three tailings/waste cells situated adjacent to each other at the Rio Algom site: The large Tailings Cell 1, Tailings Cell 2 to the west of Cell 1, and a small Cell 3 east of Cell 1 that was used to dispose of contaminated windblown material. Reclamation of Cell 1 is complete, and cover construction of Cells 2 and 3 is still ongoing. Reclamation activities have at times included unlined evaporation pond residue excavation and disposal, contaminated windblown soil cleanup, tailings impoundment reclamation, surface water erosion protection feature construction, and mill building demolition. The licensee has indicated that this proposed cell expansion design is one component of the overall site reclamation plan. The licensee previously has addressed, and NRC has approved, the remaining site-wide reclamation plan elements through separate licensing actions, including the original reclamation plan for Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 (approved in September 1990), mill demolition, relocation of lined evaporation pond sediments, soil decommissioning plan, and groundwater remediation. II. EA Summary In April 2005, Rio Algom sent the NRC a Reclamation Plan for disposal of evaporation pond sediments for its Ambrosia Lake uranium mill tailings facility. In a followup to the proposed plan, Rio Algom submitted, under letter dated May 31, 2007, Revision 1 of the plan and a response to NRC’s request for additional information. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, and regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (10 CFR Part 40) require that material at uranium mill tailings sites be disposed of in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Rio Algom proposes to excavate its lined evaporation ponds (Ponds 9 and 11 through 21), and place all the contaminated sediments, dikes, and underlying materials onto the existing Tailings Cell 2. The expanded Cell 2 will then be closed as part of the facility decommissioning plan. Rio Algom PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 estimates that up to 3 million cubic yards of materials will be excavated, hauled, and compacted as part of this action. The reclamation of the expanded Tailings Cell 2 is intended to: (1) Control radiological hazards for 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable; (2) limit the release of radon-222 from uranium by-product, and radon-220 from thorium by-product materials to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average of 20 pCi/m2/sec; (3) reduce direct gamma exposure from the reclaimed tailings cell to background levels; (4) avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites; and (5) provide a final site that is geotechnically stable and provides protection of water resources for the long term. The NRC staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The New Mexico Environment Department was consulted during the EA preparation. The staff considered impacts that the licensee’s amended Reclamation Plan will have on ground water, surface water, socioeconomic conditions, threatened and endangered species, transportation, land use, public and occupational health, and historic and cultural resources. The EA supports a FONSI based on the following conclusions. The potential impacts of the proposed action are limited to the land surface and are temporary during the construction activity. The direct impacts to the surface primarily will be dust generation due to excavating material, hauling it to the disposal area, and working it at the disposal area. Fugitive dust from heavy equipment operation will be mitigated through the use of dust suppression methods on haul roads. Impacts at the expansion cell area itself are minimal, since the area is already disturbed from site reclamation activities. The licensee’s implementation of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the site, its site Health, Safety and Environment Management System, and NRC license requirements provide adequate assurances to control impacts to the environment. Additional ambient air monitoring stations have been installed to collect data to demonstrate that control measures are implemented and effective. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment, and there is no E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63933-63934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22093]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-271; License No. DPR-28]


Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated August 27, 2007, the 
New England Coalition (NEC or the petitioner) has requested that the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take action with 
regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). 
The NEC petition requested that NRC promptly restore reasonable 
assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety that is 
now degraded by the failure of the licensee and its employees to report 
adverse conditions leading to a reduction in plant safety margins at 
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), or otherwise 
to order a derate or shutdown of Vermont Yankee until it can be 
determined to what extent Vermont Yankee is being operated in an 
unanalyzed condition. Specifically, the petition requested the 
following actions: (1) NRC completion of a Diagnostic Evaluation Team 
examination or Independent Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee to 
determine the extent of condition of non-conformances, reportable 
items, hazards to safety, and the root causes thereof; (2) NRC 
completion of a safety culture assessment to determine why worker 
safety concerns were not previously reported and why assessments of 
safety culture under the Reactor Oversight Process failed to capture 
the fact or reasons that safety concerns have gone unreported; (3) 
derate Vermont Yankee to 50% of licensed thermal power with a mandatory 
hold at 50% until a thorough and detailed structural and performance 
analysis of the cooling towers, including the alternate cooling system, 
has been completed by the licensee; reviewed and approved by NRC; and 
until the above steps (1) and (2) have been completed; and (4) NRC 
investigation and determination of whether or not similar non-
conforming conditions and causes exist at other Entergy-run nuclear 
power plants.
    As a basis for the request, the petition cited problems related to 
the inadequate performance of Vermont Yankee Inservice Inspection, 
Maintenance, Engineering, and Quality Assurance leading to a cooling 
tower cell collapse coupled with the employees' assertion of degrading 
plant conditions inimical to public health.
    The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 2.206 of the Commission's 
regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, 
appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable 
time. Mr. Raymond Shadis, in his capacity as the petitioner's Staff 
Technical Advisor, participated in two telephone conference calls with 
the NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) on September 12, 2007, and 
October 3, 2007, to discuss the petition and provide any additional 
explanation in light of the PRB's initial recommendation. The results 
of those discussions were considered in the PRB's determination 
regarding the petitioner's request for action and in establishing the 
schedule for the review of the petition. The PRB confirmed its initial 
recommendation to reject action items (1), (2), and (4), which are the 
diagnostic evaluation team examination, safety culture assessment, and 
the NRC investigation at other Entergy facilities. These action items 
were rejected for review under the 2.206 process because these actions 
are not enforcement-related. However, the PRB has determined that the 
petition meets the criteria for review in Management Directive 8.11 
with respect to a portion of action item (3). Specifically, the PRB 
found that the facts presented in the petition related to the cooling 
tower cell collapse in action (3) were credible and sufficient to 
warrant further inquiry.
    A copy of the petition and supplement and the transcripts of the 
telephone conference calls are available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland and from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS)

[[Page 63934]]

Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Accession Nos. 
ML072420194, ML072780363, ML072610466, and ML07830584). 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 6th day of November 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J. T. Wiggins,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-22093 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P