PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 6223-6224 [2010-2656]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6223
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Application For a License To Export
High-Enriched Uranium
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(c) ‘‘Public
notice of receipt of an application,’’
please take notice that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has received the
following request for an export license.
Copies of the request are available
electronically through ADAMS and can
be accessed through the Public
Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link
https://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/
index.html at the NRC Homepage.
A request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene may be filed within
30 days after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register. Any request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
shall be served by the requestor or
petitioner upon the applicant, the Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary,
U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC 20520.
A request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene may be filed with the
NRC electronically in accordance with
NRC’s E-Filing rule promulgated in
August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28,
2007). Information about filing
electronically is available on timely
electronic filing, at least five days prior
to the filing deadline, the petitioner/
requestor should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by
calling (301) 415–1677, to request a
digital ID certificate and allow for the
creation of an electronic docket.
In addition to a request for hearing or
petition for leave to intervene, written
comments, in accordance with 10 CFR
110.81, should be submitted within
thirty (30) days after publication of this
notice in the Federal Register to Office
of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications.
The information concerning this
application follows.
NRC EXPORT LICENSE APPLICATION
Name of applicant, date of
application, date received, application No., docket No.
DOE/NNSA–Y–12 National
Security Complex December 21, 2009, December
28, 2009, XSNM3623,
11005844.
Description of material
End use
Material type
High-Enriched Uranium
(93.35%).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated this 2nd day of February 2010, at
Rockville, Maryland.
Stephen Dembek,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of
International Programs.
17.5 kilograms uranium (16.3
kilograms U–235).
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem),
located in Salem County, New Jersey. 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.
[FR Doc. 2010–2657 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–272, 50–311 and 50–354;
NRC–2010–0043]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 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
requirements of 10 CFR part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF–57, DPR–70, and
DPR–75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC
(PSEG, the licensee), for operation of the
Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS)
and the Salem Nuclear Generating
VerDate Nov<24>2008
11:51 Feb 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
The proposed action would exempt
HCGS and Salem from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, HCGS and Salem
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.
PSEG has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
December 17, 2010, approximately 81⁄2
months 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 site for
HCGS and Salem.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 3, 2009, as supplemented by
PO 00000
Recipient county
Total quantity
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
To fabricate targets for irradiation in the National Research Universal (NRU)
Reactor to produce medical isotopes.
Canada.
letters dated November 20, and
December 22, 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 combined HCGS-Salem security
system due to the significant number of
engineering design packages,
procurement needs, and installation
activities.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
6224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices
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. In addition, as discussed above,
in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR
Part 73, the Commission prepared an
environmental assessment and
published a finding of no significant
impact (74 FR 13967).
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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 date. 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 (FES) for the HCGS, NUREG–
1074, dated December 1984, or the FES
for Salem dated April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on January 4, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the New Jersey State
officials, Mr. Jerry Humphreys (for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
11:51 Feb 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
HCGS) and Mr. Elliot Rosenfeld (for
Salem) of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State officials 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 3, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML093100222), as supplemented by
letter dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML093640062). 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 ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Note, the above letters contain
enclosures with redacted versions of
safeguards information that is not
available to the public. Another letter
from the licensee dated November 20,
2009, also contains safeguards
information and, accordingly, is not
available to the public.
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 29th day
of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–2656 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–263; NRC–2010–0045]
Northern States Power Company of
Minnesota; Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant 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 of certain new
requirements of 10 CFR part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. DPR–22, issued to Northern
States Power Company of Minnesota
(NSPM) for operation of Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP)
located in Wright County, Minnesota. 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
MNGP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for two new requirements of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, MNGP 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. NSPM
has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of June
30, 2011, approximately 15 months
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 MNGP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 3, 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 MNGP security system due to
impediments to construction such as
planned refueling outages and winter
weather conditions.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6223-6224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311 and 50-354; NRC-2010-0043]
PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 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 requirements of 10 CFR part 73,
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC
(PSEG, the licensee), for operation of the Hope Creek Generating
Station (HCGS) and the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2 (Salem), located in Salem County, New Jersey. 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 HCGS and Salem from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR part 73. Specifically, HCGS and Salem 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. PSEG has
proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of December
17, 2010, approximately 8\1/2\ months 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 site for HCGS and
Salem.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated November 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated
November 20, and December 22, 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 combined HCGS-
Salem security system due to the significant number of engineering
design packages, procurement needs, and installation activities.
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 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
[[Page 6224]]
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. In addition,
as discussed above, in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73,
the Commission prepared an environmental assessment and published a
finding of no significant impact (74 FR 13967).
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 date. 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 (FES) for the
HCGS, NUREG-1074, dated December 1984, or the FES for Salem dated April
1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 4, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the New Jersey State officials, Mr. Jerry
Humphreys (for HCGS) and Mr. Elliot Rosenfeld (for Salem) of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials 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 3, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093100222), as
supplemented by letter dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093640062). 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 ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Note, the above letters contain enclosures with redacted
versions of safeguards information that is not available to the public.
Another letter from the licensee dated November 20, 2009, also contains
safeguards information and, accordingly, is not available to the
public.
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 29th day of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-2656 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
