Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 3762-3763 [2010-1196]

Download as PDF 3762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated November 6, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated November 20, 2009. Portions of the submittals contain proprietary and security information and, accordingly, are not available to the public pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390. The public 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 O–1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document 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 15th day of January 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Donna N. Wright, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–1182 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328; NRC– 2010–0021] erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah 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 an Exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the implementation date for certain new requirements of 10 CFR part 73, ‘‘Physical protection of plants and materials,’’ for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–77 and DPR–79, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee), for operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (SQN), located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria for and identification of VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:43 Jan 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,’’ the NRC prepared an environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC concluded that the proposed action will have no significant environmental impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the TVA from the required implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of 10 CFR part 73. Specifically, SQN would be granted an exemption from being in full compliance with certain new requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage,’’ by the March 31, 2010, deadline (74 FR 13935, March 27, 2009). TVA has proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of September 24, 2012, approximately two and half years beyond the date required by 10 CFR part 73. The proposed action, an extension of the schedule for completion of certain actions required by the revised 10 CFR part 73, does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, support structures, water, or land at the SQN site that were not previously considered in the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009). The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated November 6, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 11, 2010. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with additional time to perform the required upgrades to the SQN security system because they involve new components and engineering that cannot be obtained or completed by the March 31, 2010, implementation date. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to extend the implementation deadline would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological hazard PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 beyond those previously analyzed in the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR part 73 (74 FR 13967). There will be no change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption. The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC and will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of SQN as TVA implements certain new requirements in 10 CFR part 73. Therefore, the extension of the implementation date of the new requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to September 24, 2012, would not have any significant environmental impacts. 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, if granted. 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 exemption request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee would have to comply with the March 31, 2010, implementation deadline. The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the ‘‘no action’’ alternative are similar. E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for SQN dated February 13, 1974. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on December 22, 2009, the NRC staff consulted with the Tennessee State official, Elizabeth Flannagan of the Tennessee Bureau of Radiological Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 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 November 6, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 11, 2010. Portions of the November 6, 2009, submittal contain safeguards and security sensitive information and, accordingly, are not available to the public. Other parts of these 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 O–1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document 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 13th day of January 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Siva P. Lingam, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch LPL2–2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–1196 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:43 Jan 21, 2010 Jkt 220001 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT [OMB Control No. 3206–0174; Forms RI 20– 63, RI 20–116 and RI 20–117] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved information collection. ‘‘Survivor Annuity Election for a Spouse’’ (OMB Control No. 3206– 0174; Form RI 20–63), is used by annuitants to elect a reduced annuity with a survivor annuity for their spouse. (OMB Control No. 3206–0174; Form RI 20–116) is a cover letter for RI 20–63 giving information about the cost to elect less than the maximum survivor annuity. This letter may be used to decline to elect. (OMB Control No. 3206–0174; RI 20–117) is a cover letter for RI 20–63 giving information about the cost to elect the maximum survivor annuity. This letter may be used to ask for more information or to decline to elect. RI 20–117 is accompanied by RI 20– 63A, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Spouse, or RI 20–63B, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Spouse When You Are Providing a Former Spouse Annuity. Both booklets explain the election. RI 20–63A is for annuitants who do not have a former spouse who is entitled to a survivor annuity benefit. RI 20–63B is for those who do have a former spouse who is entitled to a benefit. These booklets do not require OMB clearance. They have been included because they provide the annuitant additional information. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3763 We estimate 2,400 RI 20–63 forms are returned each year electing survivor annuities and 200 annuitants return the cover letter to ask for information about the cost to elect less than the maximum survivor annuity or to refuse to provide any survivor benefit. We estimate this form takes an average of 45 minutes per response to complete the form with a burden of 1,800 hours and 10 minutes to complete the letter, which gives a burden of 34 hours. The total burden for RI 20–63 is 1,834 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606–4808, FAX (202) 606–0910 or via E-mail to Cyrus.Benson@opm.gov. Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to James K. Freiert, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415–3500. For information regarding administrative coordination contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 4H28, Washington, DC 20415. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. John Berry, Director. [FR Doc. 2010–1112 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–38–P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection: (OMB Control No. 3206–0211; Reemployment of Annuitants, 5 CFR 837.103) AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of a currently approved information collection. ‘‘Reemployment of Annuitants’’ (OMB Control No. 3206– 0211; 5 CFR 837.103), requires agencies E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3762-3763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1196]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328; NRC-2010-0021]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah 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 an Exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' from the 
implementation date for certain new requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA, the licensee), for operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 
1 and 2 (SQN), located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. In accordance 
with 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification of licensing and 
regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,'' the NRC 
prepared an environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC 
concluded that the proposed action will have no significant 
environmental impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the TVA from the required 
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of 
10 CFR part 73. Specifically, SQN would be granted an exemption from 
being in full compliance with certain new requirements contained in 10 
CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of licensed 
activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage,'' 
by the March 31, 2010, deadline (74 FR 13935, March 27, 2009). TVA has 
proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of September 
24, 2012, approximately two and half years beyond the date required by 
10 CFR part 73. The proposed action, an extension of the schedule for 
completion of certain actions required by the revised 10 CFR part 73, 
does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 
structures, support structures, water, or land at the SQN site that 
were not previously considered in the environmental assessment and 
finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in promulgating 
its revisions to 10 CFR part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 
74 FR 13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated November 6, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated 
January 11, 2010.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with 
additional time to perform the required upgrades to the SQN security 
system because they involve new components and engineering that cannot 
be obtained or completed by the March 31, 2010, implementation date.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed 
exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to extend 
the implementation deadline would not significantly affect plant safety 
and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of 
an accident occurring.
    The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological 
hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the environmental assessment 
and finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in 
promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR part 73 (74 FR 13967). There will 
be no change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures 
to plant workers and members of the public. Therefore, no changes or 
different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of the 
proposed exemption.
    The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water 
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened, 
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or 
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Steven's Act 
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
    There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There 
would be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to 
or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are 
expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    The licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to 
the NRC and will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of 
SQN as TVA implements certain new requirements in 10 CFR part 73. 
Therefore, the extension of the implementation date of the new 
requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to September 24, 2012, would not have 
any significant environmental impacts.
    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, if granted.

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 exemption request would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee 
would have to comply with the March 31, 2010, implementation deadline. 
The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the ``no 
action'' alternative are similar.

[[Page 3763]]

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for SQN dated 
February 13, 1974.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on December 22, 2009, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Tennessee State official, Elizabeth Flannagan 
of the Tennessee Bureau of Radiological 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 
licensee's letter dated November 6, 2009, as supplemented by letter 
dated January 11, 2010. Portions of the November 6, 2009, submittal 
contain safeguards and security sensitive information and, accordingly, 
are not available to the public. Other parts of these 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 O-1F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Document 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 13th day of January 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Siva P. Lingam,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch LPL2-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-1196 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.