Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 12580-12581 [2010-5683]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12580
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued
Day
Event/activity
20 ......................
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs
any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
(Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
25 ......................
30 ......................
40 ......................
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
[FR Doc. 2010–5688 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am]
Environmental Assessment
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Identification of the Proposed Action
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC–
2010–0101]
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Southern California Edison Company,
San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3; 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. NPF–10, and NPF–15,
issued to Southern California Edison
Company (SCE, the licensee), for
operation of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
(SONGS 2 and 3), located in San Diego
County, California. 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
The proposed action would exempt
SCE from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for several new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, SCE 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. SCE
has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
January 31, 2011, approximately 10
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 SONGS
2 and 3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 17, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to implement two specific
elements of the new requirements that
involve significant physical
modifications to the SONGS 2 and 3
security systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 13926). 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
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices
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
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 (March 27, 2009)].
With its request to extend the
implementation deadline, the licensee
currently maintains a security system
acceptable to the NRC and that will
continue to provide acceptable physical
protection of SONGS 2 and 3 in lieu of
the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, the extension of the
implementation date of the new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to
January 31, 2011, 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 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.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for SONGS
Units 2 and 3, dated May 12, 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 1, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the California State
official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of the
California Department of Public Health,
regarding the environmental impact of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:33 Mar 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 December 17, 2009. Portions of
the December 17, 2009, submittal
contain safeguards information and,
accordingly, a redacted version of the
December 17, 2009, letter is available for
public review in the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML093570268. This document 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. 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 10th day
of March 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–5683 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
12581
of No Significant Impact for Exemption
from Commencement of Construction
Requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Adams, Senior Project Manager,
Fuel Manufacturing Branch, Division of
Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Rockville, Maryland
20852. Telephone: (301) 492–3113; Fax:
(301) 492–3363; e-mail:
Mary.Adams@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
By letter dated June 17, 2009,
Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear
Materials License applicant AREVA
Enrichment Services, LLC, (the
Applicant) submitted a request to
exempt certain activities described in
the license application from the
‘‘commencement of construction’’
provisions of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 70.4,
70.23(a)(7), 30.4, 30.33, 40.4, and
40.32(e). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff is considering
issuing an exemption to the Applicant
from provisions in 10 CFR 70.4,
70.23(a)(7), 30.4, 30.33, 40.4, and
40.32(e). The exemption would
authorize the Applicant to undertake
certain site preparation activities at its
proposed uranium enrichment facility
in Bonneville County, Idaho. Granting
this exemption is not a guarantee that
the NRC has decided to issue an
operating license to the Applicant. The
Applicant would be undertaking these
site preparation activities with the risk
that its license application may later be
denied. NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this exemption in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21
and 51.33. Based on this EA, the NRC
has reached a Finding of No Significant
Impact.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
II. Summary of the Environmental
Assessment
[Docket No. 70–7015; NRC–2009–0187]
Background
The commencement of construction
provisions of 10 CFR 30.33, 40.32(e),
and 70.23(a)(7) date back to 1972, when
they were initially codified by the NRC
as part of a comprehensive rulemaking
pertaining to all facilities licensed under
Parts 30, 40, 50 and 70. These regulatory
provisions remained unchanged until
the NRC in 1980 amended its
regulations in 10 CFR part 40. These
revisions required that the NRC’s NEPA
review be completed prior to
authorizing any uranium milling
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for Exemption From
10 CFR 30, 40, and 70; Commencement
of Construction Requirements; AREVA
Enrichment Services, Eagle Rock
Enrichment Facility, Bonneville
County, ID
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
Environmental Assessment and Finding
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12580-12581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5683]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362; NRC-2010-0101]
Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3; 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. NPF-10, and NPF-15, issued to Southern California Edison
Company (SCE, the licensee), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), located in San Diego
County, California. 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 SCE from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, SCE 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. SCE has proposed an
alternate full compliance implementation date of January 31, 2011,
approximately 10 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 SONGS 2 and 3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 17, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time to implement two specific elements of the new
requirements that involve significant physical modifications to the
SONGS 2 and 3 security systems.
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 13926). 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
[[Page 12581]]
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 (March 27, 2009)].
With its request to extend the implementation deadline, the
licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC
and that will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of
SONGS 2 and 3 in lieu of the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, the extension of the implementation date of the new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to January 31, 2011, 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 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
SONGS Units 2 and 3, dated May 12, 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 1, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the California State official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of
the California Department of Public 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 December 17, 2009. Portions of the December 17,
2009, submittal contain safeguards information and, accordingly, a
redacted version of the December 17, 2009, letter is available for
public review in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML093570268. This document 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. 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 10th day of March 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-5683 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
