Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 3942-3943 [2010-1299]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3942
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices
with strategies aligned with current and
projected aviation safety issues. A major
step in the development of the NASSP
is the collection and analysis of
worldwide safety issues.
II. Method of Collection
Aviation stakeholders will be
contacted via electronic means and
asked to respond by filling out a
questionnaire. They will have the
option of printing it and filling it out
manually and then returning it via
traditional mail, filling it out
electronically and returning via email,
or visiting a Web site where the
questionnaire can be filled out online.
The information will be collected by the
JPDO Aviation Safety Working Group’s
Strategic Planning Subcommittee and
used to determine the efficacy of the
Aviation Safety Strategic Plan.
III. Data
Title: Biennial NextGen Safety Issue
Survey.
OMB Number: 2700–XXXX.
Type of Review: New Collection.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
100.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Time per Response: 2
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 200 hours.
Estimated Annual Cost for
Respondents: $0.00.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of NASA, including
whether the information collected has
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
NASA’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including automated
collection techniques or the use of other
forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection.
They will also become a matter of
public record.
Lori Parker,
NASA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–1257 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry;
Notice of Meeting
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, as amended), the National Science
Foundation announces the following
meeting.
Name: Centers for Chemical
Innovation (CCI) Phase I Cyber Review
Panel, Proposal Review Panel for
Chemistry, #1191.
Dates & Times: February 23, 2010;
8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. February 24, 2010;
8:30 a.m.–4 p.m.
Place: NCSA ACCESS (National
Center for Supercomputing
Applications); 901 N. Stuart Street #800,
Arlington, VA 22203.
Type of Meeting: Part-open.
Contact Person: Dr. William Brittain,
Program Director, Chemistry Centers
Program, Division of Materials Research,
Room 1055, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 292–5039.
Purpose of Meeting: Review progress
of Phase I CCI awards.
Agenda
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 (All Times
Eastern)
8:30–9:30, Closed Charge to Panel,
instructions and discussion
9:30–12, Open Presentation from
‘‘Center for Molecular Interfacing’’
12–12:30, Closed Discussions (NSF,
panel, CMI)
12:30–1:30, Lunch
1:30–4, Open Presentation from
‘‘Center for Green Materials
Chemistry (CGMC)’’
4–4:30, Closed Discussions (NSF staff,
panel, CGMC)
4:30–5:30, Closed Panel discussions
and work on panel summaries
Wednesday, Feb 24, 2010 (All Times
Eastern)
8:30–9, Closed Panel discussions
9:00–11:30, Open Presentation from
‘‘Center for the Chemistry of the
Universe (CCU)’’ (NSF staff, panel,
CCU)
12:00–12:30, Closed Discussions (NSF
staff, panel, CCU)
12:30–4, Closed Lunch, panel
summaries, Panel discussions,
finalizing summary reports
Reason for Closing: Topics to be
discussed and evaluated during the site
review will include information of a
proprietary or confidential nature,
including technical information; and
information on personnel. These matters
are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4)
and (6) of the Government in the
Sunshine Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: January 19, 2010.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–1266 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–400; NRC–2010–0020]
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit 1 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 Renewed Facility
Operating License No. NPF–63, issued
to Carolina Power & Light Company (the
licensee), now doing business as
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC),
for operation of the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP),
located in New Hill, North Carolina.
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
actions will have no significant
environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
HNP from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for several new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, HNP 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. PEC has proposed an
alternate full compliance
implementation date of July 30, 2010,
for one requirement, and December 15,
2010, for two other requirements, which
is approximately four months and eight
and a half months, respectively, 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
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices
Part 73, does not involve any physical
changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or
land at the HNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 30, 2009, as supplemented by
letter dated December 16, 2009.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 HNP security system due to the need
to design, resource, construct, and test
three significant physical modifications
to the current site security
configuration, as well as other factors.
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 as discussed
in a Federal Register (FR) notice dated
March 27, 2009 (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 MagnusonStevens 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
impacts associated with the proposed
action. In addition, in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact (Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 through 13967, dated March 27,
2009).
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
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). If the proposed
action was denied, the licensee would
have to comply with the March 31,
2010, implementation deadline. Denial
of the exemption request would result
in no change in current environmental
impacts. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of the proposed exemption and
the ‘‘no action’’ alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for HNP, NUREG–0972, dated
October 31, 1983, as supplemented
through the ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1—
Final Report (NUREG–1437,
Supplement 33).’’
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on December 18, 2009, the NRC staff
consulted with the North Carolina State
official, Ms. Beverly Hall of the Division
of Radiation Protection, with the North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, 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 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letter dated December
16, 2009. Attachment 1 to the licensee’s
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3943
November 30, 2009 letter, as well as the
December 16, 2009 letter in its entirety
contain security-related 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 14th day
of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marlayna Vaaler,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–1299 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425; NRC–
2010–0023]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating 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 a certain new
requirement of 10 CFR Part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–68 and
NPF–81, issued to Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, the
licensee), for operation of the Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
(VEGP), located in Burke County,
Georgia. In accordance with 10 CFR
51.21, the NRC prepared an
environmental assessment documenting
its finding. The NRC concluded that the
proposed actions will have no
significant environmental impact.
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3942-3943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1299]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-400; NRC-2010-0020]
Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1 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 Renewed Facility
Operating License No. NPF-63, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company
(the licensee), now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
(PEC), for operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1
(HNP), located in New Hill, North Carolina.
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 actions will have no
significant environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt HNP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, HNP 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. PEC has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of July 30, 2010, for one requirement,
and December 15, 2010, for two other requirements, which is
approximately four months and eight and a half months, respectively,
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
[[Page 3943]]
Part 73, does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel,
plant structures, support structures, water, or land at the HNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated November 30, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated
December 16, 2009.
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 HNP security
system due to the need to design, resource, construct, and test three
significant physical modifications to the current site security
configuration, as well as other factors.
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 as discussed in a Federal
Register (FR) notice dated March 27, 2009 (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-Stevens 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. In addition,
in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the Commission
prepared an environmental assessment and published a finding of no
significant impact (Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 through 13967, dated March 27, 2009).
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 actions, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
If the proposed action was denied, the licensee would have to comply
with the March 31, 2010, implementation deadline. Denial of the
exemption request would result in no change in current environmental
impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed exemption
and the ``no action'' alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for HNP, NUREG-
0972, dated October 31, 1983, as supplemented through the ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Regarding Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1--Final Report
(NUREG-1437, Supplement 33).''
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 18, 2009, the NRC
staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Ms. Beverly
Hall of the Division of Radiation Protection, with the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 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 30, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated December 16, 2009. Attachment 1 to the licensee's November 30,
2009 letter, as well as the December 16, 2009 letter in its entirety
contain security-related 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 14th day of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marlayna Vaaler,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-1299 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
