Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 3945-3946 [2010-1304]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices
The Need for the Proposed Action
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0019; Docket Nos. 50–390 and
50–391]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar
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 No. NPF–90, issued to
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
licensee), for operation of the Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, located in
Rhea County, Tennessee. This
consideration is also applicable to Unit
2, currently under licensing process. 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.
Environmental Assessment
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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, WBN, Units 1 and
2 would be granted an exemption from
being in full compliance with certain
new requirements contained in 10 CFR
73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline.
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 WBN,
Units 1 and 2 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform the required upgrades to
the WBN, Units 1 and 2 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 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 nonradiological 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 the WBN, Units 1
and 2 as TVA implements certain new
requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, the extension of the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3945
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
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed actions (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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for the WBN, Units 1 and 2,
NUREG–0498, dated December 1978,
and a supplement to the Final
Environmental Statement (NUREG–0498
Supplement 1), dated April 1995.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on December 24, 2009, the NRC staff
consulted with the Tennessee State
official, Elizabeth Flanagan 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,
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
3946
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2010 / Notices
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.
John G. Lamb,
Senior Project Manager, Watts Bar Special
Projects Branch, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
06, 71 NRC _(slip op. at 6–7, 19 (Jan. 7,
2010))).
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chair, Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC
20555–0001;
Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001;
Dr. William W. Sager, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated in August
2007 (72 FR 49,139).
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th
day of January 2010.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010–1304 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2010–1319 Filed 1–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[Docket Nos. 50–438–CP, 50–439–CP;
ASLBP No. 10–896–01–CP–BD01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Tennessee Valley Authority;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306; NRC–
2010–0022]
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.105,
2.300, 2.313, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is
hereby given that an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (Board) is being
established to preside over the following
proceeding:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
This proceeding concerns a Petition to
Intervene submitted by the Blue Ridge
Environment Defense League, its
chapter Bellefonte Efficiency and
Sustainability Team, and the Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy in response to
a Federal Register Notice published on
March 13, 2009 (74 FR 10,969) stating
that any person adversely affected by
the Commission’s determination to
reinstate the construction permits for
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
to be located in Jackson County,
Alabama, may request a hearing. The
scope of the hearing request ‘‘is limited
to whether good cause exists for the
reinstatement of the [construction
permits]’’ (ibid.; see also In the Matter of
Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI–10–
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Jan 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
License Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60;
Northern States Power Company;
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Receipt of
Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition
dated September 4, 2009, Mr. David Lee
Sebastian (petitioner) has requested that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) take action with
regard to the licensee for the Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2. The Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant is operated by
Northern States Power Company,
incorporated in Minnesota as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc.
(Xcel). The petitioner requests that the
NRC:
(1) Order Xcel to cease and desist
from its current arbitrary and capricious
practices using the Access
Authorization and Fitness for Duty (AA/
FFD) Programs other than their intended
created intent, as they are being applied
against the petitioner.
(2) Order compliance with:
(A) The NRC’s regulations under
Section 73.56, ‘‘Personnel Access
Authorization Requirements for Nuclear
Power Plants,’’ of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 73.56);
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(B) The rationale described in the
final rule ‘‘Access Authorization
Program for Nuclear Power Plants’’ (RIN
3150–AA90) published in the Federal
Register on April 26, 1991 (56 FR
18997); and
(C) Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI)
implementation guidance in ‘‘Nuclear
Power Plant Access Authorization
Program’’ (NEI–03–01, Rev. 2).
(3) That the petitioner be granted
access authorization without further
delay to perform his accepted job tasks
with all record of denial removed from
any and all records wherever found.
(4) Issue any other Order, or grant any
other relief, to which the petitioner may
have shown himself entitled.
As the basis for the request, the
petitioner states that Xcel is in violation
of 10 CFR 73.56 in denying him access
to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant using the AA/FFD program by
basing the decision solely upon an
existing tax lien. The petitioner states
that Xcel failed to base the decision to
grant or deny unescorted access
authorization on a review and
evaluation of all pertinent information.
The petitioner states that Xcel failed to
incorporate all three elements (i.e.,
background investigation, psychological
assessment, and behavioral observation)
of the unescorted access authorization
program when making the decision to
deny the petitioner unescorted access,
contrary to the rationale for rule ‘‘Access
Authorization Program for Nuclear
Power Plants’’ (56 FR 18997).
The NRC is treating the petitioner’s
request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206,
‘‘Requests for Action under This
Subpart.’’ The request has been referred
to the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation. As provided by
Section 2.206, the NRC will take
appropriate action on this petition
within a reasonable time. A copy of the
petition is 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,
MD 20852. Publicly available records
related to this action will be accessible
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
by e-mail to pdr.Resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for the
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3945-3946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1304]
[[Page 3945]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0019; Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar 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 No. NPF-90, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
licensee), for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1,
located in Rhea County, Tennessee. This consideration is also
applicable to Unit 2, currently under licensing process. 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.
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, WBN, Units 1 and 2 would be granted an
exemption from being in full compliance with certain new requirements
contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. 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 WBN, Units 1 and
2 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 WBN, Units 1
and 2 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
the WBN, Units 1 and 2 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 actions, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the WBN,
Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0498, dated December 1978, and a supplement to the
Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-0498 Supplement 1), dated April
1995.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 24, 2009, the NRC
staff consulted with the Tennessee State official, Elizabeth Flanagan
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,
[[Page 3946]]
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.
John G. Lamb,
Senior Project Manager, Watts Bar Special Projects Branch, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-1304 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
