FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 14635-14637 [2010-6758]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices
CFR part 73, for certain alarm station
requirements. DNC has also proposed an
alternate full compliance date of August
31, 2010, 5 months beyond the date
required by 10 CFR part 73, for certain
uninterruptible power supply
requirements. 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 MPS1,
MPS2, and MPS3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 12, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML100131116), as supplemented by
letter dated January 12, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100131115).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD 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 combined MPS1, MPS2, and MPS3
security system due to the procurement
needs and installation activities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The NRC 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact (74 FR 13926).
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 (FES) for MPS1, dated June
1973, or the FES for MPS2, dated June
1973, as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Millstone Power Station,
Units 2 and 3—Final Report (NUREG–
1437, Supplement 22),’’ or the FES for
MPS3, NUREG–1064, dated December
1984, as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Millstone Power Station,
Units 2 and 3—Final Report (NUREG–
1437, Supplement 22).’’
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 18, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Connecticut State
official, Mr. Michael Firsick of the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14635
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 12, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated January
12, 2010. Portions of the submittal
contain safeguards 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, Room O–1 F21, 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 19th day
of March, 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carleen J. Sanders,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6719 Filed 3–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–346; NRC–2010–0125]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station; 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
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
14636
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. NPF–3, issued to
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
(FENOC, the licensee), for operation of
the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
Unit 1 (DBNPS), located in Ottawa
County, Ohio. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an
environmental assessment. Based on the
results of this environmental
assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding
of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the DBNPS from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for a certain new requirement of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, DBNPS 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.
FENOC has proposed an alternate full
compliance date of February 3, 2011,
approximately 11 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 DBNPS site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 30, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML093370138, not publicly available,
contains security-related information),
as supplemented on December 23, 2009
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093650293,
not publicly available, contains
security-related information).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform and design the
necessary modifications, procure
equipment and material, and implement
upgrades to comply with a specific
aspect of 10 CFR 73.55.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
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 details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
exemption that will be issued as part of
the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption.
The proposed action would not result
in an increased radiological hazard
beyond those previously analyzed in the
environment 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 effect 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
revisions to 10 CFR, part 73, the
Commission prepared an environment
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact (Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)).
The licensee currently maintains a
security system acceptable to the NRC.
The new 10 CFR part 73 security
measures that would be implemented by
March 31, 2010, would continue to
provide acceptable onsite physical
protections of DBNPS. Therefore, the
extension of the implementation date of
the new requirements of 10 CFR part 73
to February 3, 2011, would not have any
significant environmental impacts.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
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
action and the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative
action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement, NUREG–75/
097, dated October 1975, for the DBNPS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 24, 2009, the staff
consulted with the Ohio State official,
Ms. Carol O’Claire of the Ohio
Emergency Management 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 letter
dated November 30, 2009, as
supplemented on December 23, 2009.
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 O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. 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 18th day
of March 2010.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Michael Mahoney,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–6758 Filed 3–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–333; NRC–2010–0136]
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power
Plant; 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. DPR–59, issued
to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the
licensee), for the operation of the James
A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
(JAFNPP) located in Oswego County,
NY. In accordance with 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
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
JAFNPP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, JAFNPP 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.
JAFNPP has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
December 31, 2010, approximately 9
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 JAFNPP
site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 21, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25 and March 2,
2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 JAFNPP security system due to
design, resource and logistical impacts
from adverse winter weather and from
material delivery dates.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14637
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 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental
Statement related to operation of James
A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Power Authority of the State of New
York, Docket No. 50–333,’’ dated March
1973, as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Supplement 31
Regarding James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
Power Plant, Final Report’’ (NUREG—
1437, Supplement 31), January 2008.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 19, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the New York State
official, Alyse Peterson, of the New York
State Energy Research and Development
Authority, 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 21, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February
25 and March 2, 2010. Portions of the
submittal dated January 21, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated February
25, 2010, contain sensitive security
related information and, accordingly,
are withheld from public disclosure in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The
letter dated March 2, 2010, is the
redacted version of the letter dated
February 25, 2010. Publicly available
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14635-14637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6758]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-346; NRC-2010-0125]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station; 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
[[Page 14636]]
materials,'' for Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, issued to
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, the licensee), for
operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS),
located in Ottawa County, Ohio. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of
this environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the DBNPS from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for a certain new requirement of
10 CFR part 73. Specifically, DBNPS 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. FENOC has proposed an
alternate full compliance date of February 3, 2011, approximately 11
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 DBNPS site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated November 30, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093370138, not publicly
available, contains security-related information), as supplemented on
December 23, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093650293, not publicly
available, contains security-related information).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time to perform and design the necessary modifications,
procure equipment and material, and implement upgrades to comply with a
specific aspect of 10 CFR 73.55.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation 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 details of the 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.
The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological
hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the environment 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 effect 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 environment assessment and published a finding of no
significant impact (Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)).
The licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to
the NRC. The new 10 CFR part 73 security measures that would be
implemented by March 31, 2010, would continue to provide acceptable
onsite physical protections of DBNPS. Therefore, the extension of the
implementation date of the new requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to
February 3, 2011, would not have any significant environmental impacts.
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 staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application 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 action and the ``no-action''
alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement,
NUREG-75/097, dated October 1975, for the DBNPS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 24, 2009, the
staff consulted with the Ohio State official, Ms. Carol O'Claire of the
Ohio Emergency Management 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 letter dated November 30, 2009, as supplemented on December
23, 2009. 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
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 18th day of March 2010.
[[Page 14637]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Michael Mahoney,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6758 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
