Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13798-13799 [2010-6323]
Download as PDF
13798
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, or the presiding
officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings, unless an NRC regulation
or other law requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: March 3,
2010, as supplemented by letter dated
March 4, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered
Safety Feature Actuation System
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ Condition J,
Required Action J.1, and associated
Note for the start of the motor-driven
auxiliary feedwater pumps on the trip of
all main feedwater (MFW) pumps. Wolf
Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
has determined that the design and
normal operation of the MFW pumps at
Wolf Creek Generating Station could
result in a condition that does not
conform to TS Table 3.3.2–1, Function
6.g and the proposed TS changes are
needed to address this condition.
Date of issuance: March 5, 2010.
Effective date: The license
amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 10 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 187.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–42. The amendment revised
the Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment, finding of emergency
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated March 5,
2010.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
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–38, issued to Entergy
Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee),
for operation of the Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3),
located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day
of March 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:31 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
[FR Doc. 2010–6052 Filed 3–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
The Need for the Proposed Action
[NRC–2010–0110; 50–382]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford
Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
Environmental Assessment and
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 one new requirement of 10 CFR
PART 73 for Waterford 3. Specifically,
Entergy 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. Entergy has proposed an
alternate compliance date to November
15, 2010, for one of the provisions,
approximately 71⁄2 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 Waterford 3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 19, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated February 17, 2010. Portions
of the letters dated January 19 and
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
February 17, 2010, contain securityrelated information and, accordingly,
are withheld from public disclosure.
Redacted versions of the letters dated
January 19 and February 17, 2010, are
available to the public in the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML100210193
and ML100500999, respectively.
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 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.
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Notices
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 Waterford 3, dated
September 1981.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 18, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Louisiana State
official, Ms. Cheryl Chubb of the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness &
Response offices of the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality,
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 19, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated February
17, 2010. Portions of the letters dated
January 14, 2010, and February 17,
2010, contain Security-Related
information and, accordingly, are not
available to the public. Other parts of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:31 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 Documents 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.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch LPL4, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6323 Filed 3–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards
In accordance with the purposes of
Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting
on April 8–10, 2010, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of
this meeting was previously published
in the Federal Register on Monday,
October 14, 2009, (74 FR 52829–52830).
Thursday, April 8, 2010, Conference
Room T2–B1, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman
(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct
of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.–10 a.m.: Draft Final Interim
Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/COL–ISG–016,
‘‘Compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2)
and 10 CFR 52.80(d)’’ (Open/Closed)—
The Committee will hear presentations
by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff
regarding Draft Final DC/COL–ISG–016,
‘‘Compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2)
and 10 CFR 52.80(d),’’ and the NRC
staff’s resolution of public comments.
[Note: A portion of this session may be
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13799
closed to protect unclassified safeguards
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(3).]
10:15 a.m.–12 p.m.: Selected Chapters
of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
with Open Items Associated with the
Review of the U.S. Evolutionary Power
Reactor (USEPR) Design Certification
Application (Open/Closed)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff and
AREVA NP regarding Chapters 2, 4, 5,
8, 10, 12, and 17 of the SER with Open
Items associated with the review of the
USEPR Design Certification
Application.
[Note: A portion of this session may
be closed to protect information that is
proprietary to AREVA NP and its
contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(4).]
1 p.m.–4 p.m.: Supplement 3 to
General Electric (GE) Topical Report
NEDC–33173PA, ‘‘Applicability of GE
Methods to Expanded Operating
Domains’’ (Open/Closed)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff and GE
regarding Supplement 3 to GE Topical
Report NEDC–33173PA, ‘‘Applicability
of GE Methods to Expanded Operating
Domains.’’ [Note: A portion of this
session may be closed to protect
information that is proprietary to GE
and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(4).]
4:15 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open/Closed)—The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS
reports on matters discussed during this
meeting. [Note: A portion of this session
may be closed to protect unclassified
safeguards information pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(3).]
Friday, April 9, 2010, Conference Room
T2–B1, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman
(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct
of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.–9:30 a.m.: Final ISG ESP/
DC/COL–ISG–015, ‘‘Post-Combined
License Commitments’’ (Open)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff
regarding Final ESP/DC/COL–ISG–015,
‘‘Post-Combined License Commitments’’
and the NRC staff’s resolution of public
comments.
9:45 a.m.–11:15 a.m.: Future ACRS
Activities/Report of the Planning and
Procedures Subcommittee (Open/
Closed)—The Committee will discuss
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13798-13799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6323]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0110; 50-382]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
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) 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-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the
licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
3 (Waterford 3), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 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 one new requirement of 10
CFR PART 73 for Waterford 3. Specifically, Entergy 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. Entergy has
proposed an alternate compliance date to November 15, 2010, for one of
the provisions, approximately 7\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 Waterford 3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated January 19, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated
February 17, 2010. Portions of the letters dated January 19 and
February 17, 2010, contain security-related information and,
accordingly, are withheld from public disclosure. Redacted versions of
the letters dated January 19 and February 17, 2010, are available to
the public in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) in ADAMS Accession Nos. ML100210193 and ML100500999,
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-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.
[[Page 13799]]
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 Waterford 3,
dated September 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 18, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Ms. Cheryl Chubb of
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness & Response offices of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 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 19, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated February 17, 2010. Portions of the letters dated January 14,
2010, and February 17, 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
Agencywide Documents 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.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch LPL4, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6323 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P