Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 5191-5192 [E9-1903]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–1904 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278; NRC–
2009–0033]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
Unit Nos. 2 and 3; 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 R, Section III.G,
‘‘Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown
Capability,’’ for the use of operator
manual actions in lieu of the
requirements specified in Section III.G.2
as requested by Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, (the licensee, in
addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for
operation of Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3
located in York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an
exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual
actions contained in the licensee’s Fire
Protection Program (FPP). The licensee’s
FPP requires that the identified operator
manual actions be performed outside of
the control room to achieve shutdown
following fires in certain fire areas. The
licensee states that each of the manual
actions were subjected to a manual
action feasibility review for PBAPS that
determined that the manual actions are
feasible and can be readily performed.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
October 5, 2007, as supplemented on
May 1 and December 11, 2008
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession Numbers ML072820129,
ML081220873 and ML083470170,
respectively).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption from 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix R, was submitted in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 Jan 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
response to the need for an exemption
as identified by NRC Regulatory
Information Summary (RIS) 2006–10,
‘‘Regulatory Expectations with
Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator
Manual Actions.’’ The RIS noted that
NRC inspections identified that some
licensees had relied upon operator
manual actions, instead of the options
specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent
solution to resolve issues related to
Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers. The
licensee indicates that the operator
manual actions, referenced in the
October 5, 2007, application, were
previously included in correspondence
with the NRC and found acceptable in
a fire protection-related Safety
Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September
16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number
ML081690220). However, RIS 2006–10
identifies that an exemption under 10
CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of
the manual actions in lieu of the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even if the
NRC previously issued a safety
evaluation found the manual actions
acceptable. The proposed exemption
provides the formal vehicle for NRC
approval for the use of the specified
operator manual actions instead of the
options specified in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the exemption will not
present an undue risk to the public
health and safety. 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.
In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff
evaluated the operator manual actions
presented in the proposed exemption,
and found that they maintained a safe
shutdown capability that satisfies the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition,
the licensee supplemented the October
5, 2007, request for exemption with
additional information in a letter dated
December 11, 2008, to confirm that the
operator manual actions addressed in
the 1993 SE are feasible and that the
safety basis for these actions remains
valid. Therefore, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5191
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. The NRC staff,
thus, concludes that granting the
proposed exemption would result in no
significant radiological environmental
impact.
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 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 PBAPS
Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and
for PBAPS Units 2 and 3, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
(NUREG–1437, Supplement 10), dated
January 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on August 8, 2008, the NRC staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State
official, Dennis Dyckman of the
Pennsylvania State Department of
Environmental Protection, 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.
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
5192
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented
on May 1 and December 11, 2008
(ADAMS Accession Numbers
ML072820129, ML081220873 and
ML083470170, respectively).
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 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.
terminology such as ‘your organization,’
but input from individual stakeholders
who may not be part of a specific
organization in the topic area are
requested as well.’’
On page 4262, column 1, in the
seventh paragraph, in the 46th line, is
corrected to read: ‘‘How do you
generally view the relationship or
hierarchy between safety and security
functions and decision making’’?
On page 4262, column 1, in the eighth
paragraph, in the 61st line, is corrected
to read: ‘‘Are there any other examples
where efforts to maintain safety and
security require different approaches or
result in competing outcomes that need
to be addressed to achieve the desired
outcome or goal’’?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of January 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart L. Magruder,
Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9–1902 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of January 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–1903 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
AGENCY: Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0013]
Safety Culture Policy Statement
Development: Public Meeting and
Request for Public Comments;
Correction
rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
notice appearing in the Federal Register
on January 23, 2009 (74 FR 4260), that
informs the public of the public meeting
and Request for Comments on topics
relating to the development of the
policy statement. In addition to
announcing the public meeting, the
NRC is using this notice to request
comments on the topics discussed in
this notice. These topics can be found
in section D (Topics for Discussion of
the Supplementary Information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June
Cai at (301) 415–5192; june.cai@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page
4262, column 1, in the fourth complete
paragraph, in the 17th line, is corrected
to delete ‘‘Some of the questions use
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 Jan 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Determination of Trade Surplus in
Certain Sugar Goods of Peru
SUMMARY: In accordance with relevant
provisions of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS), the
Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) is providing
notice of its determination of the trade
surplus in certain sugar goods of Peru.
As described below, the level of Peru’s
trade surplus in these goods relates to
the quantity of sugar goods for which
the United States grants duty-free tariff
treatment under the United States—Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement (Peru
TPA).
DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or
delivered to Leslie O’Connor, Director of
Agricultural Affairs, Office of
Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United
States Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie O’Connor, Office of Agricultural
Affairs, 202–395–6127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 101 of the United States—
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 110–138;
19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential
Proclamation No. 8341 of January 16,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2009 (74 FR 4105) implemented the
Peru TPA on behalf of the United States
and modified the HTS to reflect the
tariff and rules of origin treatment
provided for in the Peru TPA.
U.S. Note 28(c) to subchapter XXII of
HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is
required to publish annually in the
Federal Register a determination of the
amount of Peru’s trade surplus, by
volume, with all sources for goods in
Harmonized System (HS) subheadings
1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, 1701.99,
1702.20, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except
that Peru’s imports of U.S. goods
classified under HS subheadings
1702.40 and 1702.60 that are originating
goods under the Peru TPA and Peru’s
exports to the United States of goods
classified under HS subheadings
1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, and 1701.99
are not included in the calculation of
Peru’s trade surplus.
U.S. Note 28(d) to subchapter XXII of
HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free
treatment for certain sugar goods of Peru
entered under subheading 9822.06.10 in
an amount equal to the lesser of Peru’s
trade surplus or the specific quantity set
out in that note for that calendar year.
During calendar year (CY) 2007, the
most recent year for which data is
available, Peru’s imports of the sugar
goods described above exceeded its
exports of those goods by 245,132
metric tons according to data published
by its customs authority, the
Superintendencia Nacional de
Administration Tributaria. Based on
this data, USTR determines that Peru’s
trade surplus is negative. Therefore, in
accordance with U.S. Note 28(d) to
subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98,
goods of Peru are not eligible to enter
the United States duty-free under
subheading 9822.06.10 in CY2009.
James Murphy,
Assistant United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. E9–1830 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190–W9–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that
the Securities and Exchange
Commission will hold a Closed Meeting
on Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the
Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries
will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5191-5192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1903]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; NRC-2009-0033]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; 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 R, Section III.G, ``Fire
Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,'' for the use of operator
manual actions in lieu of the requirements specified in Section III.G.2
as requested by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (the licensee, in
addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for operation of Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 located in York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania. 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 grant an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual actions contained in
the licensee's Fire Protection Program (FPP). The licensee's FPP
requires that the identified operator manual actions be performed
outside of the control room to achieve shutdown following fires in
certain fire areas. The licensee states that each of the manual actions
were subjected to a manual action feasibility review for PBAPS that
determined that the manual actions are feasible and can be readily
performed.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and
December 11, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and ML083470170,
respectively).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, was
submitted in response to the need for an exemption as identified by NRC
Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 2006-10, ``Regulatory Expectations
with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator Manual Actions.'' The RIS
noted that NRC inspections identified that some licensees had relied
upon operator manual actions, instead of the options specified in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent solution to
resolve issues related to Thermo-Lag 330-1 fire barriers. The licensee
indicates that the operator manual actions, referenced in the October
5, 2007, application, were previously included in correspondence with
the NRC and found acceptable in a fire protection-related Safety
Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September 16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number
ML081690220). However, RIS 2006-10 identifies that an exemption under
10 CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of the manual actions in lieu of
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even
if the NRC previously issued a safety evaluation found the manual
actions acceptable. The proposed exemption provides the formal vehicle
for NRC approval for the use of the specified operator manual actions
instead of the options specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section
III.G.2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety. 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.
In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff evaluated the operator manual actions
presented in the proposed exemption, and found that they maintained a
safe shutdown capability that satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition, the licensee supplemented
the October 5, 2007, request for exemption with additional information
in a letter dated December 11, 2008, to confirm that the operator
manual actions addressed in the 1993 SE are feasible and that the
safety basis for these actions remains valid. Therefore, 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. The NRC staff, thus, concludes that granting the
proposed exemption would result in no significant radiological
environmental impact.
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
PBAPS Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and for PBAPS Units 2 and 3,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants,'' (NUREG-1437, Supplement 10), dated January 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 8, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Dennis Dyckman of
the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection,
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.
[[Page 5192]]
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and
December 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and
ML083470170, respectively). 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 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 January 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-1903 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
