NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, et al., 13319-13320 [2010-6063]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
13320
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
the Seabrook security system due
primarily to the impacts of the spring
2010 adverse weather conditions and
other factors.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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
would 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 would 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 MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There would be 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 that will
be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 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 the Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, NUREG–0895, dated December
1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 5, 2010, the staff consulted
with the New Hampshire and
Massachusetts State officials, Messrs. M.
Nawoj and J. Giarrusso, respectively,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. Neither State
official had any 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 February 25, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated March 5,
2010. Portions of each of the submittals
contain security-related information
and, accordingly, some enclosures are
not available to the public. Other parts
of 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
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–
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of March 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dennis Egan,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch 1–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6063 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–302; NRC–2010–0105]
Florida Power Corporation, et al.,
Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear
Generating Plant; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) 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. DPR 72 issued to Florida
Power Corporation (the licensee), for
operation of the Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant (CR–3),
located in Citrus County, Florida. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ 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 CR–3 from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for two new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73. Specifically, CR–3 would be
granted an exemption from being in full
compliance with certain new
requirements contained in 10 CFR
73.55, ‘‘Requirements for physical
protection of licensed activities in
nuclear power reactors against
radiological sabotage,’’ by the March 31,
2010, deadline. The licensee has
proposed alternate full compliance
implementation dates of November 15
and December 15, 2010, for the specific
requirements identified within the
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13319-13320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 13320]]
the Seabrook security system due primarily to the impacts of the spring
2010 adverse weather conditions and other factors.
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 would 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 would 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-Stevens Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There would be 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
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 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 considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Seabrook
Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG-0895, dated December 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 5, 2010, the staff
consulted with the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials,
Messrs. M. Nawoj and J. Giarrusso, respectively, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. Neither State official had
any 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 February 25, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated March 5, 2010. Portions of each of the submittals contain
security-related information and, accordingly, some enclosures are not
available to the public. Other parts of 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 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 12th day of March 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dennis Egan,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 1-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6063 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
