FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 24997-24998 [2010-10675]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https:// 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. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from May 6, 2010. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of April 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Chandu Patel, Project Manager, AP 1000 Projects Branch 1, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. 2010–10676 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301; NRC– 2010–0173] mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 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 amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27, issued to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 May 05, 2010 Jkt 220001 Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would change the legal name of the Licensee and Owner from ‘‘FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC’’ to ‘‘NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC.’’ The proposed action would also make an administrative change to correct an error in the license by changing ‘‘FPLE Group Capital’’ to ‘‘FPL Group Capital.’’ The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary to reflect the legal change of name of the Licensee and Owner on April 16, 2009. Also, the proposed action is necessary to correct a typographical error in Appendix C which incorrectly labels the parent company. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has concluded in its safety evaluation of the proposed action that since this action is for a name change and error correction only that (1) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission’s regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The details of the NRC staff’s review of the proposed amendment will be provided in the Safety Evaluation document supporting the license amendment. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24997 Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. 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. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 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 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 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 October 22, 2009, and April 14, 2010, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment. 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 April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 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, Public File Area 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 E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1 24998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–10675 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72–62; EA–2010–048] In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company: Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; Independent Spent Fuel Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) [NRC–2010– 0171] AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures and Fingerprinting for Unescorted Access to Florida Power and Light Company. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 492–3316; fax number: (301) 492–3348; e-mail: Raynard.Wharton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES I NRC has issued a general license to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), authorizing the operation of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. This Order is being issued to FPL because it has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission’s regulations at 10 CFR VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 May 05, 2010 Jkt 220001 72.212(b)(5), 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1), and 10 CFR 73.55(c)(5) require licensees to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific physical security requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. Comparable Orders have been issued to all licensees that currently store spent fuel or have identified nearterm plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees’ capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs, to place the actions taken in response to the Advisories into the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements that emerged from NRC’s ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has conducted a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures (ASMs) are required to address the current threat environment, in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety, the environment, and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at FPL’s facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the ASMs implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, in light of the continuing threat environment, the Commission concludes that these actions must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, licenses issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that, in light of the common defense and security circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, Effective Immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. FPL shall comply with the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant’s physical security plan. FPL shall complete implementation of the requirements in Attachments 1 and 2 to the Order no later than 365 days from the date of this Order or 90 days before the first day that spent fuel is initially E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24997-24998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10675]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 [Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301; NRC-2010-0173]


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 amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC (the 
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 
2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. 
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would change the legal name of the Licensee and 
Owner from ``FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC'' to ``NextEra Energy Point 
Beach, LLC.'' The proposed action would also make an administrative 
change to correct an error in the license by changing ``FPLE Group 
Capital'' to ``FPL Group Capital.''
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated 
January 19, 2010.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is necessary to reflect the legal change of 
name of the Licensee and Owner on April 16, 2009. Also, the proposed 
action is necessary to correct a typographical error in Appendix C 
which incorrectly labels the parent company.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has concluded in its safety evaluation of the proposed 
action that since this action is for a name change and error correction 
only that (1) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and 
safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the 
proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance 
with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the 
amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or 
to the health and safety of the public.
    The details of the NRC staff's review of the proposed amendment 
will be provided in the Safety Evaluation document supporting the 
license amendment.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no 
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation 
exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

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. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the 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 for 
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 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 October 22, 2009, and 
April 14, 2010, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, 
Jeff Kitsembel, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The State official had no comment.

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 April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated 
January 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, Public File Area 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

[[Page 24998]]

at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-10675 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.