Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 80441-80442 [E8-31162]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 251 / Wednesday, December 31, 2008 / Notices
August 30, 1983 (ADAMS Legacy
Library Accession No. 830909011).
Therefore, OPPD needs exemption from
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.1.b,
for the cables in the duct bank and
manhole vaults numbers 5 and 31 that
are routed between the pull boxes and
the intake structure building.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–285]
Omaha Public Power District; Fort
Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from the
requirements of Section III.G.1.b of
Appendix R to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50,
for Facility Operating License No. DPR–
40, issued to Omaha Public Power
District (OPPD, the licensee), for
operation of the Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, located in Washington
County, Nebraska. 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 provisions of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section
III.G.1.b, for the 72-hour requirement to
provide repair procedures and materials
for cold shutdown capability for
redundant cold shutdown components.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
February 4, 2008 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML080360106), as supplemented by
letter dated October 13, 2008 (ADAMS
No. ML082980018).
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide notification and clarification of
the exemption granted by the NRC by
letter dated July 3, 1985 (ADAMS
Legacy Library Accession No.
850724390), in which the NRC granted
an exemption from the technical
requirements of Section III.G.2 of
Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, for Fire
Area 31 (intake structure building) and
for the pull box area of the auxiliary
building. The NRC safety evaluation
report (SER) dated July 3, 1985,
incorrectly referenced Section III.G.2
and subsequently provided exemption
from 10 CFR Part 50, Section III.G.
Specifically, the original SER and
exemption should have referenced 10
CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.1.b.
In addition, cables in the duct bank and
manhole vaults numbers 5 and 31 that
are routed between the pull boxes and
intake structure were not discussed in
the OPPD exemption request dated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the consequences of
postulated accidents are not increased,
because there is no credible fire hazard
in the area of the cable duct bank or
manhole, which would disable all the
raw water pumps and prevent the cold
shutdown capability. Furthermore, if all
raw water pumps are lost, due to any
condition, the abnormal operating
procedure directs the operator to trip
the reactor and enter emergency
procedures based on observed plant
conditions. Therefore, there is no undue
risk, since neither the probability nor
the consequences have been increased,
to public health and safety.
On the basis of its review and
evaluation of the information provided
in the licensee’s exemption request and
response to NRC staff request for
additional information questions, the
NRC staff concludes that OPPD’s request
for exemption from the technical
requirements of Section III.G.1.b of
Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 has
provided a thorough description of the
proposed change and adequate safety
assessment which address the issue.
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 released offsite. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80441
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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 Fort
Calhoun Station dated August 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on November 26, 2008, the NRC staff
consulted with the Nebraska State
official, Julia Schmitt, of the Department
of Health and Human Services
Regulation and Licensure, 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 February 4, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated October
13, 2008. 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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of December 2008.
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
80442
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 251 / Wednesday, December 31, 2008 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–31162 Filed 12–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Docket No. WTO/DS382/1]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding
Regarding United States—AntiDumping Administrative Reviews and
Other Measures Related to Imports of
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY: Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is
providing notice that on November 27,
2008, Brazil requested consultations
with the United States under the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization (‘‘WTO
Agreement’’) concerning the
antidumping duty administrative review
on certain orange juice from Brazil
(Department of Commerce Case No. A–
351–840) and various U.S. laws,
regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies. That
request may be found at www.wto.org
contained in a document designated as
WT/DS382/1. USTR invites written
comments from the public concerning
the issues raised in this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any
comments received during the course of
the dispute settlement proceedings,
comments should be submitted on or
before January 26 to be assured of timely
consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Public comments should be
submitted electronically to
www.regulations.gov, docket number
USTR–2008–44. If you are unable to
provide submissions by
www.regulations.gov, please contact
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to
arrange for an alternative method of
transmission. If (as explained below) the
comment contains confidential
information, then the comment should
be submitted by fax only to Sandy
McKinzy at (202) 395—3640.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leigh Bacon, Associate General
Counsel, Office of the United States
Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–
5859.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
USTR is
providing notice that consultations have
been requested pursuant to the WTO
Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(‘‘DSU’’). If such consultations should
fail to resolve the matter and a dispute
settlement panel is established pursuant
to the DSU, such panel, which would
hold its meetings in Geneva,
Switzerland, would be expected to issue
a report on its findings and
recommendations within nine months
after it is established.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Major Issues Raised by Brazil
On November 27, 2008, Brazil
requested consultations regarding the
antidumping duty administrative review
on certain orange juice from Brazil,
referring in particular to the use of
‘‘zeroing’’ in that review. Brazil
challenges (1) the determination by the
Department of Commerce in Certain
Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Administrative Review (A–351–840), 73
FR 46584 (Aug. 11, 2008), covering the
period of August 24, 2005, through
February 28, 2007, and assessment
instructions and cash deposit
requirements issued pursuant thereto;
(2) the determinations of the
Department of Commerce in any
ongoing or future antidumping duty
administrative reviews in that case, the
final results thereof, and assessment
instructions and cash deposit
requirements issued pursuant thereto;
and (3) any actions taken by Customs
and Border Protection to collect
definitive anti-dumping duties at
assessment rates established in the
administrative reviews in that case,
including the issuance of liquidation
instructions and notices. Brazil also
challenges various U.S. laws,
regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies: (1) The
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in
particular sections 736, 751, 771(35)(A)
and (B), and 777A(c) and (d) (19 U.S.C.
1673e, 1675, 1677(35)(A) and (B), and
1677f(c) and (d)); (2) the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 (1994), reprinted
in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040; (3)
Department of Commerce regulations set
forth in part 351 of Title 19 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, in particular
sections 351.212(b) and 351.414(c) and
(e); (4) the Import Administration
Antidumping Manual (1997 ed.),
including the computer programs
referenced therein; and (5) the use of
‘‘zeroing’’ procedures and
methodologies in antidumping
administrative reviews.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Brazil alleges that these laws,
regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies are, as
such and as applied in the Department
of Commerce determinations and
actions by Customs and Border
Protection in the orange juice
administrative review, inconsistent with
Articles II, VI:1, and VI:2 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994,
Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.3, 11.2,
and 18.4 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement);
and Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement.
Public Comment: Requirements for
Submissions
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments concerning
the issues raised in this dispute. Persons
may submit public comments
electronically to www.regulations.gov
docket number USTR–2008–44. If you
are unable to provide submissions by
www.regulations.gov, please contact
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to
arrange for an alternative method of
transmission.
To submit comments via
www.regulations.gov, enter docket
number USTR–2008–44 on the home
page and click ‘‘go.’’ The site will
provide a search-results page listing all
documents associated with this docket.
Find a reference to this notice by
selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document
Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link
entitled ‘‘Send a Comment or
Submission.’’ (For further information
on using the www.regulations.gov Web
site, please consult the resources
provided on the Web site by clicking on
‘‘How to Use This Site’’ on the left side
of the home page.)
The www.regulations.gov site
provides the option of providing
comments by filling in a ‘‘General
Comments’’ field, or by attaching a
document. It is expected that most
comments will be provided in an
attached document. If a document is
attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See
attached’’ in the ‘‘General Comments’’
field.
A person requesting that information
contained in a comment submitted by
that person be treated as confidential
business information must certify that
such information is business
confidential and would not customarily
be released to the public by the
submitter. Confidential business
information must be clearly designated
as such and the submission must be
marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 251 (Wednesday, December 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80441-80442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31162]
[[Page 80441]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-285]
Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from the requirements of Section III.G.1.b of
Appendix R to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part
50, for Facility Operating License No. DPR-40, issued to Omaha Public
Power District (OPPD, the licensee), for operation of the Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit No. 1, located in Washington County, Nebraska. 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 provisions
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.1.b, for the 72-hour
requirement to provide repair procedures and materials for cold
shutdown capability for redundant cold shutdown components.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 4, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML080360106), as supplemented
by letter dated October 13, 2008 (ADAMS No. ML082980018).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide notification and
clarification of the exemption granted by the NRC by letter dated July
3, 1985 (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 850724390), in which the
NRC granted an exemption from the technical requirements of Section
III.G.2 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, for Fire Area 31 (intake
structure building) and for the pull box area of the auxiliary
building. The NRC safety evaluation report (SER) dated July 3, 1985,
incorrectly referenced Section III.G.2 and subsequently provided
exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Section III.G. Specifically, the
original SER and exemption should have referenced 10 CFR 50, Appendix
R, Section III.G.1.b. In addition, cables in the duct bank and manhole
vaults numbers 5 and 31 that are routed between the pull boxes and
intake structure were not discussed in the OPPD exemption request dated
August 30, 1983 (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 830909011).
Therefore, OPPD needs exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,
III.G.1.b, for the cables in the duct bank and manhole vaults numbers 5
and 31 that are routed between the pull boxes and the intake structure
building.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the consequences of postulated accidents are not
increased, because there is no credible fire hazard in the area of the
cable duct bank or manhole, which would disable all the raw water pumps
and prevent the cold shutdown capability. Furthermore, if all raw water
pumps are lost, due to any condition, the abnormal operating procedure
directs the operator to trip the reactor and enter emergency procedures
based on observed plant conditions. Therefore, there is no undue risk,
since neither the probability nor the consequences have been increased,
to public health and safety.
On the basis of its review and evaluation of the information
provided in the licensee's exemption request and response to NRC staff
request for additional information questions, the NRC staff concludes
that OPPD's request for exemption from the technical requirements of
Section III.G.1.b of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 has provided a
thorough description of the proposed change and adequate safety
assessment which address the issue.
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 released offsite. 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 NRC 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 Fort Calhoun Station dated August 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 26, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Nebraska State official, Julia Schmitt, of the
Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure,
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 February 4, 2008, as supplemented by letter
dated October 13, 2008. 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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of December 2008.
[[Page 80442]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-31162 Filed 12-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P