Northern States Power Company of Minnesota; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 6224-6225 [2010-2668]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The NRC 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
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, 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, 13967 (March 27, 2009)].
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption, 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
11:51 Feb 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
6225
exemption request would result in no
change in current environmental
impacts. If the proposed action were
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.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for MNGP in November 1972,
as updated by Environmental Impact
Statement, Supplement 26, dated
August 2006 (NUREG–1437,
Supplement 26, associated with
renewing the operating license for
MNGP for an additional 20 years).
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on December 17, 2009, the NRC staff
consulted with the Minnesota State
official 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 redacted
version of the licensee’s letter dated
November 3, 2009; the unredacted
version contains safeguards information
and, accordingly, is not available to the
public. The redacted version, dated
December 15, 2009 (Accession No.
ML100190133) 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 29th day
of January 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2010–2668 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306; NRC–
2010–0046]
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota; Prairie Island Nuclear
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) § 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–42 and
DPR–60, issued to Northern States
Power Company—Minnesota (NSPM,
the licensee), for operation of the Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2 (PINGP), located in Goodhue
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
PINGP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, PINGP 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 PINGP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 5, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated November 30, 2009
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6224-6225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2668]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 6225]]
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed
exemption. The NRC 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 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,
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, 13967 (March 27, 2009)].
The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the
exemption, 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 were 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 MNGP in
November 1972, as updated by Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement
26, dated August 2006 (NUREG-1437, Supplement 26, associated with
renewing the operating license for MNGP for an additional 20 years).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 17, 2009, the NRC
staff consulted with the Minnesota State official 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
redacted version of the licensee's letter dated November 3, 2009; the
unredacted version contains safeguards information and, accordingly, is
not available to the public. The redacted version, dated December 15,
2009 (Accession No. ML100190133) 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 29th day of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-2668 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
