PPL Susquehanna, LLC.: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13322-13323 [2010-6055]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13322
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388; NRC–
2010–0109]
PPL Susquehanna, LLC.:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
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 Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–14 and
NPF–22, issued to PPL Susquehanna,
LLC (PPL or the licensee), for operation
of the Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2,
respectively, located in Luzerne County,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73. Specifically, the licensee 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. The
licensee has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
October 29, 2010, for two requirements
and until July 31, 2011, for one other
requirement. 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 SSES
Units 1 and 2 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 3, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated January 8 and 29, 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 SSES Units 1 and 2 security system
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
due to resource and logistical impacts
and other factors.
The licensee has requested the
proposed exemption from the specific
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,
‘‘Requirements for physical protection of
licensed activities in nuclear power
reactors against radiological sabotage,’’
for SSES Units 1 and 2 by extending the
implementation deadline for certain
security requirements issued by NRC in
a Final Rule dated March 27, 2009 (74
FR 13926).
Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new
security requirements must be
implemented by March 31, 2010. PPL
has evaluated these new requirements
and determined that many can be
implemented by the required date. PPL
has determined, however, that
implementation of specific parts of the
new requirements will require more
time to implement since they are
significant physical changes involving
or requiring: (1) Specific parts that are
proving to be long lead time items, (2)
specialized industry expertise whose
availability is being challenged by the
significant demand for a limited
resource, or (3) a major interface with
the plant for installation that must be
carefully planned and implemented to
avoid impact to the plant protective
strategy.
Specifically, extensions are requested
until October 29, 2010, for two
requirements and until July 31, 2011, for
one other requirement.
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 licensee currently maintains a
security system acceptable to the NRC to
provide acceptable physical protection
of the SSES, Units 1 and 2 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 until
October 29, 2010, for two requirements
and until July 31, 2011, for one other
requirement, 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
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
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
action and the alternative action 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 the SSES
Units 1 and 2 site, NUREG–0564, dated
June 1981 as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants, Supplement 35
Regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2 Final Report,’’
dated March 2009.
[FR Doc. 2010–6055 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 17, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania State official, Larry
Winker of the Department of
Environmental Protection/Bureau of
Radiation Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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 3, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated January
8, 2010, and January 29, 2010. Portions
of the letter dated December 3, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated January 8
and January 29, 2010, contain security
sensitive information and, accordingly,
are withheld from public disclosure in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The
redacted versions of the December 3,
2009, as supplemented by letters dated
January 8 and January 29, 2010,
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession Number ML093410632,
ML100120657, and ML100330085,
respectively), 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–
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. 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 15th day
of March 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bhalchandra K. Vaidya,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–333; NRC–2010–0095]
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power
Plant; Exemption
1.0
Background
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the
licensee) is the holder of Facility
Operating License No. DPR–59, which
authorizes operation of the James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
(JAFNPP). The license provides, among
other things, that the facility is subject
to all rules, regulations, and orders of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter
in effect.
The facility consists of a boiling-water
reactor located in Oswego County in
New York State.
2.0
Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section
50.48, requires that nuclear power
plants that were licensed before January
1, 1979, satisfy the requirements of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R, ‘‘Fire
Protection Program for Nuclear Power
Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,
1979,’’ Section III.G, ‘‘Fire protection of
safe shutdown capability.’’ JAFNPP was
licensed to operate prior to January 1,
1979. As such, the licensee’s Fire
Protection Program (FPP) must provide
the established level of protection as
intended by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
R, and Section III.G.
By letter dated February 18, 2009,
‘‘Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50
Appendix R Section III.G.2
Requirements Based on Manual
Actions,’’ (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No.
ML090860980), as supplemented by
letter dated March 30, 2009, ‘‘James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power PlantResponse to Request for Information
Required for Acceptance Review
Regarding: Request for Exemption’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML091320387),
the licensee requested an exemption for
the JAFNPP from certain technical
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 (III.G.2) for
the use of an operator manual action
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13323
(OMA) in lieu of meeting the circuit
separation and protection requirements
contained in III.G.2 for Fire Area 10 at
the plant.
In response to the NRC staff’s requests
for additional information (RAI), the
licensee provided supplemental
information by letters dated November
17, 2009, (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093270075), December 11, 2009,
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093520408),
and January 19, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100210195).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when:
(1) The exemptions are authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
public health or safety, and are
consistent with the common defense
and security; and (2) when special
circumstances are present. The licensee
has stated that special circumstances are
present in that the application of the
regulation in this particular
circumstance is not necessary to achieve
the underlying purpose of the rule,
which is consistent with the language
included in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(b),
nuclear power plants licensed before
January 1, 1979, are required to meet
Section III.G, of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R. The underlying purpose of
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, and
Section III.G is to ensure that the ability
to achieve and maintain safe shutdown
is preserved following a fire event. The
regulation intends for licensees to
accomplish this by extending the
concept of defense-in-depth to:
(1) Prevent fires from starting;
(2) Rapidly detect, control, and
extinguish promptly those fires that do
occur;
(3) Provide protection for structures,
systems, and components important to
safety so that a fire that is not promptly
extinguished by the fire suppression
activities will not prevent the safe
shutdown of the plant.
The stated purpose of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 (III.G.2) is to
ensure that one of the redundant trains
necessary to achieve and maintain hot
shutdown conditions remains free of
fire damage in the event of a fire. III.G.2
requires one of the following means to
ensure that a redundant train of safe
shutdown cables and equipment is free
of fire damage, where redundant trains
are located in the same fire area outside
of primary containment:
a. Separation of cables and equipment
by a fire barrier having a 3-hour rating;
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13322-13323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6055]
[[Page 13322]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388; NRC-2010-0109]
PPL Susquehanna, LLC.: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 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 Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22, issued to PPL Susquehanna,
LLC (PPL or the licensee), for operation of the Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in
Luzerne County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an environmental assessment. Based on
the results of the environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a
finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, the licensee 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. The licensee
has proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of
October 29, 2010, for two requirements and until July 31, 2011, for one
other requirement. 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 SSES Units 1 and
2 site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated
January 8 and 29, 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 SSES Units 1
and 2 security system due to resource and logistical impacts and other
factors.
The licensee has requested the proposed exemption from the specific
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological
sabotage,'' for SSES Units 1 and 2 by extending the implementation
deadline for certain security requirements issued by NRC in a Final
Rule dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926).
Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new security requirements must be
implemented by March 31, 2010. PPL has evaluated these new requirements
and determined that many can be implemented by the required date. PPL
has determined, however, that implementation of specific parts of the
new requirements will require more time to implement since they are
significant physical changes involving or requiring: (1) Specific parts
that are proving to be long lead time items, (2) specialized industry
expertise whose availability is being challenged by the significant
demand for a limited resource, or (3) a major interface with the plant
for installation that must be carefully planned and implemented to
avoid impact to the plant protective strategy.
Specifically, extensions are requested until October 29, 2010, for
two requirements and until July 31, 2011, for one other requirement.
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 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 licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to
the NRC to provide acceptable physical protection of the SSES, Units 1
and 2 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 until October 29, 2010, for two requirements and until July 31,
2011, for one other requirement, 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 action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application 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 action and the alternative
action 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
the SSES Units 1 and 2 site, NUREG-0564, dated June 1981 as
supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental Impact
[[Page 13323]]
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 35
Regarding Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Final
Report,'' dated March 2009.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 17, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State official,
Larry Winker of the Department of Environmental Protection/Bureau of
Radiation Protection, 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 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters
dated January 8, 2010, and January 29, 2010. Portions of the letter
dated December 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated January 8 and
January 29, 2010, contain security sensitive information and,
accordingly, are withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10
CFR 2.390. The redacted versions of the December 3, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated January 8 and January 29, 2010,
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
Number ML093410632, ML100120657, and ML100330085, respectively), 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-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 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 15th day of March 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bhalchandra K. Vaidya,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6055 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
