Nextera Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; Duane Arnold Energy Center; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13318-13319 [2010-6057]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13318
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
Day
Event/Activity
25 ..................................
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.
30 ..................................
40 ..................................
A ....................................
A + 3 .............................
A + 28 ...........................
A + 53 ...........................
A + 60 ...........................
>A + 60 .........................
1 and 2, respectively, approximately 5
months for Unit 1 and 17 months for
Unit 2 beyond the date required by 10
CFR part 73.’’
[FR Doc. 2010–6071 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC–
2010–0079]
Virginia Electric and Power Company;
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2 (Surry 1 and 2); Correction to
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Correction notice.
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
[FR Doc. 2010–6054 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
notice appearing in the Federal Register
on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9618), that
cited the implementation date for
compliance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 73 as
‘‘August 31, 2010,’’ rather than ‘‘August
31, 2010, and August 31, 2011, for Surry
1 and 2, respectively.’’ This action is
necessary to add an implementation
date for Surry Unit 2.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Cotton, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone, (301) 415–1438; e-mail,
Karen.Cotton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page
9619, in the first column, second line,
it reads ‘‘implementation dated of
August 31, 2010, approximately 5
months beyond the date required by 10
CFR Part 73,’’ and it is corrected to read
‘‘* * * implementation date of August
31, 2010 and August 31, 2011, for Surry
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th
day of March 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karen Cotton,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
1, Division of Operating Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Jkt 220001
[Docket No. 50–331; NRC–2010–0107]
Nextera Energy Duane Arnold, LLC;
Duane Arnold Energy Center;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to
10 CFR 50.12, from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Option B and associated
changes to the Technical Specifications
(TSs) for main steamline isolation valve
local leakage rate testing for Facility
Operating License No. DPR–49, issued
to NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC
(the licensee), for operation of the
Duane Arnold Energy Center, located in
Palo, Iowa. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from certain portions of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B.
Specifically, the licensee requests to be
exempted from the measured leakage
rate for the main steamline isolation
valves (MSIV), and associated inboard
drainline, from inclusion in both the
overall measured leakage rate for Type
A integrated tests and from the sum of
the local leakage rates for Type B and
Type C tests as required by Appendix J,
Option B, Paragraphs III.A and Ill.B,
respectively.
In conjunction with the exemption
request, the licensee also requests
approval, pursuant to the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.90, of associated changes
to the Duane Arnold Energy Center TS,
Section 5.5.12 (Primary Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program) that
reflects the exemption to Appendix J
requested above. Also, there is an
additional proposed TS change to TS
Section 3.6.1.3 (Primary Containment
Isolation Valves) associated with MSIV
leakage testing requirements, which
does not require a corresponding
exemption from 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J. The change to TS Section
3.6.1.3, is included in the amendment
request to remove the repair criterion for
MSIVs that fail their as-found leakage
rate acceptance criterion found in the
licensee’s Surveillance Requirement
3.6.1.3.9.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
reconcile the requirements of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, Option B and their
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
Alternative Use of Resources
TS with the plant-specific testing
methodology used to determine the
MSIV local leakage rate.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and TS changes.
The staff has concluded that the changes
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. There will be no
change to radioactive effluents that
affect radiation exposures to plant
workers and members of the public. The
proposed action will be performed
inside existing plant buildings. No
changes will be made to plant buildings
or the site property. 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 or 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 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.
The details of the NRC staff’s
reasoning will be provided in the safety
evaluation supporting the amendment.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the staff considered denial of
the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
exemption and TS change request
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and TS change and the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative are similar.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for the Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Docket No. 50–331, issued in
March 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on January 29, 2010, the staff consulted
with the Iowa State official, Melanie
Rasmusson, Chief of the Bureau of
Radiological Health in the Iowa
Department of Public Health, who is the
State Liaison Officer, 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 March 4, 2009 (ML090680040).
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike,
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@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
of March, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karl D. Feintuch,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6057 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13319
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–443; NRC–2010–0108]
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, et al.,*
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1
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 No. NPF–86, issued to NextEra
Energy Seabrook, LLC (the licensee), for
operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1 (Seabrook), located in
Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
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
Seabrook from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73. Specifically, Seabrook 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.
Seabrook has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
June 4, 2010, approximately 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 Seabrook site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
February 25, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated March 5, 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
* NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC is authorized to
act as agent for the Hudson Light & Power
Department, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale
Electric Company, and Taunton Municipal Light
and has exclusive responsibility and control over
the physical construction, operation and
maintenance of the facility.
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13318-13319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-331; NRC-2010-0107]
Nextera Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; Duane Arnold Energy Center;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, from 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J, Option B and associated changes to the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for main steamline isolation valve local leakage
rate testing for Facility Operating License No. DPR-49, issued to
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the
Duane Arnold Energy Center, located in Palo, Iowa. 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 the licensee from certain portions
of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B. Specifically, the licensee
requests to be exempted from the measured leakage rate for the main
steamline isolation valves (MSIV), and associated inboard drainline,
from inclusion in both the overall measured leakage rate for Type A
integrated tests and from the sum of the local leakage rates for Type B
and Type C tests as required by Appendix J, Option B, Paragraphs III.A
and Ill.B, respectively.
In conjunction with the exemption request, the licensee also
requests approval, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.90, of
associated changes to the Duane Arnold Energy Center TS, Section 5.5.12
(Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program) that reflects the
exemption to Appendix J requested above. Also, there is an additional
proposed TS change to TS Section 3.6.1.3 (Primary Containment Isolation
Valves) associated with MSIV leakage testing requirements, which does
not require a corresponding exemption from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J.
The change to TS Section 3.6.1.3, is included in the amendment request
to remove the repair criterion for MSIVs that fail their as-found
leakage rate acceptance criterion found in the licensee's Surveillance
Requirement 3.6.1.3.9.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to reconcile the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B and their
[[Page 13319]]
TS with the plant-specific testing methodology used to determine the
MSIV local leakage rate.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed
exemption and TS changes. The staff has concluded that the changes
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. There will be no change to
radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to plant workers
and members of the public. The proposed action will be performed inside
existing plant buildings. No changes will be made to plant buildings or
the site property. 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 or 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 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.
The details of the NRC staff's reasoning will be provided in the
safety evaluation supporting the amendment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemption and TS change request would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the
proposed exemption and TS change 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 the Duane
Arnold Energy Center, Docket No. 50-331, issued in March 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 29, 2010, the
staff consulted with the Iowa State official, Melanie Rasmusson, Chief
of the Bureau of Radiological Health in the Iowa Department of Public
Health, who is the State Liaison Officer, 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 March 4, 2009 (ML090680040). Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike,
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@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of March, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karl D. Feintuch,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6057 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
