Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13607-13608 [2010-6193]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Notices
these letters can be found in the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), at
Accession Nos. ML100040088,
ML100550875, and ML100680760,
respectively. Portions of the December
21, 2009, and March 5, 2010, letters
contain security-related information
and, accordingly, those portions of the
letters are being withheld from public
disclosure.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
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 PVNGS 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
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
13607
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)].
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.
at One White Flint North, Room 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.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed actions (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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3,
NUREG–0841, dated February 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 1, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Arizona State
official, Mr. Aubrey Godwin of the
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency,
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
letters dated December 21, 2009,
February 16, 2010, and March 5, 2010.
Portions of these letters contain
security-related information and,
accordingly, are not available to the
public. The publicly available parts of
these documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2010–6195 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–313 and 50–368; NRC–
2010–0111]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas
Nuclear One, 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) § 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. DPR–51 and
NPF–6, issued to Entergy Operations,
Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), for operation
of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1
and 2 (ANO–1 and 2), located in Pope
County, Arkansas. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
prepared 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
Entergy from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for three new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73 for ANO–1 and 2. Specifically,
Entergy would be granted an exemption
from being in full compliance with
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
13608
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Notices
certain new requirements contained in
10 CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010,
deadline. Entergy has proposed an
alternate compliance date to October 31,
2010 for two requirements, and August
31, 2011 for the third 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 ANO–1 and 2 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 14, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated January 28, 2010. Portions
of the letters dated January 14 and 28,
2010, contain security-related
information and, accordingly, are
withheld from public disclosure.
Redacted versions of the letters dated
January 14 and 28, 2010, are available
to the public in the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) in ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML100190140 and ML100710021,
respectively.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time based on the delayed delivery of
critical security equipment caused by
limited vendor resources and
subsequent installation and testing time
requirements.
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 would
be no impact 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)].
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.
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 ANO–1, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC), 1973, ‘‘Final
Environmental Statement Related to
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1,’’ as
supplemented through the ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1—Final
Report’’ (NUREG–1437, Supplement 3),
dated April 2001, and for the ANO–2,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), 1977, ‘‘Final Environmental
Statement Related to Operation of
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2,’’ as
supplemented through the ‘‘Generic
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2—Final
Report’’ (NUREG–1437, Supplement 19),
dated April 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on January 26, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Arkansas State
official, Mr. Bernard Beville, of the
Arkansas Department of 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 January 14, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated January
28, 2010. Portions of the letters dated
January 14 and 28, 2010, contain
security-related information and,
accordingly, 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 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.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch LPL4, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6193 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13607-13608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6193]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368; NRC-2010-0111]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, 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) Sec. 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. DPR-51 and NPF-6, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc.
(Entergy, the licensee), for operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,
Units 1 and 2 (ANO-1 and 2), located in Pope County, Arkansas.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared 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 Entergy from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for three new requirements of 10
CFR Part 73 for ANO-1 and 2. Specifically, Entergy would be granted an
exemption from being in full compliance with
[[Page 13608]]
certain new requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March 31,
2010, deadline. Entergy has proposed an alternate compliance date to
October 31, 2010 for two requirements, and August 31, 2011 for the
third 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 ANO-1 and 2 site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated January 14, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated
January 28, 2010. Portions of the letters dated January 14 and 28,
2010, contain security-related information and, accordingly, are
withheld from public disclosure. Redacted versions of the letters dated
January 14 and 28, 2010, are available to the public in the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML100190140 and ML100710021, respectively.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time based on the delayed delivery of critical security
equipment caused by limited vendor resources and subsequent
installation and testing time requirements.
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 Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are expected. There would be no impact 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)].
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 considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the ANO-1,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 1973, ``Final Environmental
Statement Related to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1,'' as supplemented
through the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1--Final Report''
(NUREG-1437, Supplement 3), dated April 2001, and for the ANO-2, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1977, ``Final Environmental
Statement Related to Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2,'' as
supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2--Final
Report'' (NUREG-1437, Supplement 19), dated April 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 26, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Arkansas State official, Mr. Bernard Beville,
of the Arkansas Department of 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 January 14, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated January 28, 2010. Portions of the letters dated January 14 and
28, 2010, contain security-related information and, accordingly, 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 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.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch LPL4, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6193 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P