FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 14206-14207 [2010-6473]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 2010 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2010–6470 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. NRC–2010–0118]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public
comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC invites public
comment about our intention to request
the OMB’s approval for renewal of an
existing information collection that is
summarized below. We are required to
publish this notice in the Federal
Register under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: 10 CFR Part 52, ‘‘Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants’’
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0151.
3. How often the collection is
required: Whenever applications are
made for Early Site Permits (ESPs),
Standard Design Certifications (SDCs),
Combined Licenses (COLs), Standard
Design Approvals (SDAs), or
Manufacturing Licenses (MLs); and
every 10 to 20 years for applications for
renewal.
4. Who is required or asked to report:
Designers of commercial nuclear power
plants (NPPs), electric power
companies, and any person eligible
under the Atomic Energy Act to apply
for ESPs, SDCs, COLs, or MLs.
5. The number of annual respondents:
14.
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 207,244 hours (194,341 hours
reporting + 12,903 hours
recordkeeping).
7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 52 establishes
requirements for the granting of ESPs,
certifications of standard NPP designs,
and licenses which combine in a single
license a construction permit, and an
operating license with conditions, OLs,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:24 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
MLs, SDAs, and pre-application reviews
of site suitability issues. Part 52 also
establishes requirements for renewal of
those approvals, permits, certifications,
and licenses; amendments to them;
exemptions from certifications; and
variances from ESPs.
NRC uses the information collected to
assess the adequacy and suitability of an
applicant’s site, plant design,
construction, training and experience,
and plans and procedures for the
protection of public health and safety.
The NRC review of such information
and the findings derived from that
information form the basis of NRC
decisions and actions concerning the
issuance, modification or revocation of
site permits, DCs, COLs, and MLs for
NPPs.
Submit, by May 24, 2010, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting
statement may be viewed free of charge
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are
available at the NRC worldwide Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice. Comments
submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public
inspection. Because your comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying
or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any
information in your submission that you
do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Comments submitted should reference
Docket No. NRC–2010–0118. You may
submit your comments by any of the
following methods. Electronic
comments: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket No. NRC–2010–0118. Mail
comments to NRC Clearance Officer,
Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions
about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the
NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, by telephone at 301–
415–6258, or by e-mail to
INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day
of March, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2010–6472 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–266 And 50–301; NRC–
2010–0123
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, 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) Section 73.5,
‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the
implementation date for one new
requirement of 10 CFR Part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR–24 and
DPR–27, issued to FPL Energy Point
Beach, LLC (FPLE, the licensee), for
operation of the Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), located in
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC performed 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
PBNP from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for one new
requirement of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, PBNP would be granted an
exemption from being in full
compliance with a new requirement
contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March
31, 2010, deadline. FPLE has proposed
an alternate full compliance
implementation date of May 28, 2010,
approximately 2 months beyond the
date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The
proposed action, an extension of the
schedule for completion of one action
required by the revised 10 CFR Part 73,
does not involve any physical changes
to the reactor, fuel, plant structures,
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 2010 / Notices
support structures, water, or land at the
PBNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
February 26, 2010, which was
superseded by letter dated March 11,
2010.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform the required upgrades to
the PBNP security system due to
unforeseen circumstances such as
adverse weather, material delivery and
testing constraints.
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
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.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. In addition, in promulgating its
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:24 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 ‘‘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 PBNP, dated May 1972
and in NUREG–1437, Supplement 23,
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants [regarding Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2],’’ dated
August 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 12, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Wisconsin State
official, Jeff Kitsembel, 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 11, 2010. Portions of the
document contain security-related
information and, accordingly, are not
available to the public. Other parts of
the document 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),
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14207
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 document 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 17th day
of March, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Justin C. Poole,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6473 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 52–017; NRC–2008–0149]
Virginia Electric and Power Company
d/b/a/Dominion Virginia Power, and
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative;
Notice of Availability of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for North Anna Power
Station Unit 3 Combined License
Application
Notice is hereby given that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
has published a final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS),
NUREG–1917, for the North Anna, Unit
3 Combined License (COL) application.
The SEIS is a supplement to the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the
North Anna ESP Site, NUREG–1811,
dated December 2006. The North Anna
Site is located near the Town of Mineral
in Louisa County, VA, on the southern
shore of Lake Anna. A notice of
availability of the draft SEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
December 24, 2008 (73 FR 79196). The
purpose of this notice is to inform the
public that the final SEIS, NUREG–1917
for the North Anna, Unit 3 COL
application is available for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room (PDR) located at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (First
Floor), Rockville, MD 20852 or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of NRC Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14206-14207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6473]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 And 50-301; NRC-2010-0123
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 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) Section 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' from the
implementation date for one new requirement of 10 CFR Part 73,
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point
Beach, LLC (FPLE, the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), located in Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed 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 PBNP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for one new requirement of 10
CFR Part 73. Specifically, PBNP would be granted an exemption from
being in full compliance with a new requirement contained in 10 CFR
73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. FPLE has proposed an alternate
full compliance implementation date of May 28, 2010, approximately 2
months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed action,
an extension of the schedule for completion of one action required by
the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not involve any physical changes to
the reactor, fuel, plant structures,
[[Page 14207]]
support structures, water, or land at the PBNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 26, 2010, which was superseded by letter
dated March 11, 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 the PBNP security
system due to unforeseen circumstances such as adverse weather,
material delivery and testing constraints.
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 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.
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 PBNP, dated
May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2],'' dated August 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 12, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel,
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 11, 2010. Portions of the document
contain security-related information and, accordingly, are not
available to the public. Other parts of the document 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 document 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 17th day of March, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Justin C. Poole,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6473 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
