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 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.