Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13606-13607 [2010-6195]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13606
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Notices
be inimical to the common defense and
security or to the health and safety of
the public. Therefore, there would be no
significant increase in the impact
resulting from a postulated accident.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed
EPU would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. Table 2
summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at NMP2.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents ..........................
Radioactive Liquid Effluents ...............................
Occupational Radiation Doses ...........................
Offsite Radiation Doses ......................................
Radioactive Solid Waste .....................................
Spent Nuclear Fuel .............................................
Postulated Design- Basis Accident Doses .........
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in the current environmental impacts.
However, if the EPU were not approved
for NMP2, other agencies and electric
power organizations may be required to
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel
or alternative fuel power generation, to
provide electric generation capacity to
offset future demand. Construction and
operation of such a fossil-fueled or
alternative-fueled plant may create
impacts in air quality, land use, and
waste management significantly greater
than those identified for the proposed
EPU at NMP2. Furthermore, the
proposed EPU does not involve
environmental impacts that are
significantly different from those
originally identified in the NMP2 FES
and the SEIS–24.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the FES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, 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.
16:41 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
application dated May 27, 2009, as
supplemented on August 28 and
December 23, 2009, and February 19,
2010.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on 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 at 1–800–397–4209, or
301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr.Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of March 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nancy L. Salgado,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I–1, Division
of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6198 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 2, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the State of New York
official regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Amount of additional radioactive gaseous effluents generated would be handled by the existing
system.
Amount of additional radioactive liquid effluents generated would be handled by the existing
system.
Occupational doses would continue to be maintained within NRC limits.
Radiation doses to members of the public would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards.
Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system.
Amount of additional spent nuclear fuel would be handled by the existing system.
Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, and
STN 50–530; NRC–2010–0114]
Arizona Public Service Company, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 1, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. NPF–41, NPF–
51, and NPF–74, issued to Arizona
Public Service Company (APS, the
licensee), for operation of the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units
1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3),
located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 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
APS from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for several new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, APS 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. APS
has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
December 17, 2010, approximately 81⁄2
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 PVNGS,
Units 1, 2, and 3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 21, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated February 16 and March 5,
2010. Publicly available versions of
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13606-13607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6195]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530; NRC-2010-0114]
Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1, 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) 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. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74, issued to Arizona Public
Service Company (APS, the licensee), for operation of the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and
3), located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 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 APS from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, APS 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. APS has proposed an
alternate full compliance implementation date of December 17, 2010,
approximately 8\1/2\ 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 PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3
site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 21, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated
February 16 and March 5, 2010. Publicly available versions of
[[Page 13607]]
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.
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 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)].
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 actions (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 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 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.
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.
[FR Doc. 2010-6195 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
