Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 73134-73135 [2010-29935]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73134
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
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–2010–0338. 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–2010–0338. 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
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 19th day
of November 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2010–29932 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389; NRC–
2010–0363]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Florida Power and Light Company, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuance of an exemption
from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Section
26.9, for Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR–67 and NPF–16, issued to Florida
Power and Light Company, et al. (the
licensee), for operation of St. Lucie
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Plant, Units 1 and 2, located on
Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County,
Florida. 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 consider
approval of an exemption for St. Lucie
Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain
requirements of 10 CFR Part 26,
‘‘Fitness-for-Duty Rule.’’ Specifically, the
licensee requests approval of an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 26.205(c), ‘‘Work hours
scheduling,’’ and (d), ‘‘Work hour
controls.’’
The licensee states that during severe
weather conditions, for example,
tropical storms or hurricane force
winds, adherence to all work hour
controls requirements could impede the
licensee’s ability to use whatever staff
resources may be necessary to prepare
the site for a pending severe weather
event and ensure that the plant reaches
and maintains a safe and secure status.
The exemption would only apply to
severe weather conditions where
tropical storm or hurricane force winds
are predicted onsite requiring severe
weather preparations, and activation
and sequestering of the St. Lucie storm
crew.
The proposed exemption will allow
the licensee to not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d), from the time severe weather site
preparation begins until exit conditions
are satisfied. The exemption would only
apply to individuals on the storm crew
who perform duties identified in 10 CFR
26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). When storm
crew sequestering exit conditions are
met, full compliance with 10 CFR
26.205(c) and (d) will be required.
The proposed action does not involve
any physical changes to the reactor,
fuel, plant, structures, support
structures, water, or land at the St. Lucie
Plant, Units 1 and 2, site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
October 16, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Proposed action is needed because the
licensee is unable to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d) during declarations of severe
weather conditions that could result due
to prevailing tropical storm or hurricane
force winds impacting the facility.
Compliance with work hour control
requirements could impede the
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
licensee’s ability to use whatever staff
resources may be necessary to respond
to a plant emergency and ensure that the
plant reaches and maintains a safe and
secure status.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The NRC staff has
concluded that the proposed exemption
from the implementation of the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d) during declaration of severe weather
conditions, would not significantly
affect plant safety and would not have
a significant adverse affect on the
probability of occurrence of an accident.
The proposed action would not result
in any increased radiological hazards
beyond those previously evaluated by
the NRC staff in the Safety Evaluation
Reports, dated November 8 and
November 7, 1974, related to operation
of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2,
respectively. 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 occupational or public
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
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 or the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The licensee currently maintains a
Hurricane Plan that provides directions
for activation of the storm crew. The
storm crew is activated upon the
direction of the Emergency Coordinator,
typically the site Plant General Manager
or designee. This individual is qualified
as an Emergency Coordinator during a
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
declared emergency. The Plan provides
specific entry conditions for the start of
the emergency and specific conditions
that will terminate the emergency. The
licensee states that the impact on
personnel manning for implementation
of the site hurricane staffing and severe
weather preparations is similar to
entering the Emergency Plan. Although
the proposed exemption would allow
the licensee not to meet work hour
controls during storm crew activation,
sufficient numbers of management and
supervision will be available during
storm crew manning and activation to
ensure that public health and safety is
adequately protected.
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 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 exemption
request would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. If the
proposed action were denied, the
licensee would have to comply with the
fatigue rules in 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d). This would cause unnecessary
burden on the licensee, without a
significant benefit in environmental
impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed exemption and the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative are similar.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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 the St. Lucie Plant,
Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final
Environmental Statement related to the
operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2
(NUREG–0842), dated April 1982; and,
the plant-specific Supplement 11 to
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Power Plants’’ (GEIS).
Supplement 11 of the GEIS, issued on
May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of
operating licenses DPR–67 and NPF–16
for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an
additional 20 years of operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on September 7, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Florida State official,
William A Passetti of the Bureau of
Radiation Control, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 October 16, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML092990394). 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
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 800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day
of November 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–29935 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364; NRC–
2009–0375]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 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 10 CFR Part
73, ‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8, issued
to Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC, the licensee), for
operation of the Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (FNP),
located in Houston County, Alabama. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73135
prepared an environmental assessment
documenting its finding. The NRC
concluded that the proposed actions
will have no significant environmental
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the FNP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73. Specifically, FNP 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.
Instead, the licensee has proposed an
alternate full compliance
implementation date of July 15, 2011.
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 FNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
September 10, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated October 5, 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 FNP security system due to resource
and logistical constraints. Previously, by
letters dated June 9 and July 31, 2009,
SNC submitted a request for an
exemption from the compliance date
identified in 10 CFR 73.55 for three
specific requirements of 10 CFR 73.55.
The NRC staff reviewed the request and
by letter dated August 27, 2009, granted
an exemption to the March 31, 2010,
compliance date for the 3 specific
requirements identified within the SNC
exemption request until December 15,
2010. Subsequently, by letters dated
September 10 and October 5, 2010, SNC
submitted an additional request for an
exemption to the compliance date
identified in 10 CFR 73.55. The licensee
has requested a further exemption from
the March 31, 2010, compliance date
stating that a number of issues,
including unforeseen growth in the
amount of design work required, design
product loss due to computer hardware
failures, and weather-related
construction delays, will present a
significant challenge to timely
completion of the project related to
certain requirements in 10 CFR 73.55.
Specifically, the request is to extend the
compliance date for three specific
requirements from the current March
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73134-73135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389; NRC-2010-0363]
Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Section 26.9, for Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and
Light Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of St. Lucie Plant,
Units 1 and 2, located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County,
Florida. 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 consider approval of an exemption for St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part
26, ``Fitness-for-Duty Rule.'' Specifically, the licensee requests
approval of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c),
``Work hours scheduling,'' and (d), ``Work hour controls.''
The licensee states that during severe weather conditions, for
example, tropical storms or hurricane force winds, adherence to all
work hour controls requirements could impede the licensee's ability to
use whatever staff resources may be necessary to prepare the site for a
pending severe weather event and ensure that the plant reaches and
maintains a safe and secure status.
The exemption would only apply to severe weather conditions where
tropical storm or hurricane force winds are predicted onsite requiring
severe weather preparations, and activation and sequestering of the St.
Lucie storm crew.
The proposed exemption will allow the licensee to not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d), from the time severe weather
site preparation begins until exit conditions are satisfied. The
exemption would only apply to individuals on the storm crew who perform
duties identified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). When storm crew
sequestering exit conditions are met, full compliance with 10 CFR
26.205(c) and (d) will be required.
The proposed action does not involve any physical changes to the
reactor, fuel, plant, structures, support structures, water, or land at
the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 16, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Proposed action is needed because the licensee is unable to meet
the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during declarations of
severe weather conditions that could result due to prevailing tropical
storm or hurricane force winds impacting the facility.
Compliance with work hour control requirements could impede the
licensee's ability to use whatever staff resources may be necessary to
respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the plant reaches and
maintains a safe and secure status.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed
exemption from the implementation of the requirements of 10 CFR
26.205(c) and (d) during declaration of severe weather conditions,
would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a
significant adverse affect on the probability of occurrence of an
accident.
The proposed action would not result in any increased radiological
hazards beyond those previously evaluated by the NRC staff in the
Safety Evaluation Reports, dated November 8 and November 7, 1974,
related to operation of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively.
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
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
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 or the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would
be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The licensee currently maintains a Hurricane Plan that provides
directions for activation of the storm crew. The storm crew is
activated upon the direction of the Emergency Coordinator, typically
the site Plant General Manager or designee. This individual is
qualified as an Emergency Coordinator during a
[[Page 73135]]
declared emergency. The Plan provides specific entry conditions for the
start of the emergency and specific conditions that will terminate the
emergency. The licensee states that the impact on personnel manning for
implementation of the site hurricane staffing and severe weather
preparations is similar to entering the Emergency Plan. Although the
proposed exemption would allow the licensee not to meet work hour
controls during storm crew activation, sufficient numbers of management
and supervision will be available during storm crew manning and
activation to ensure that public health and safety is adequately
protected.
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 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 exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. If the proposed action were denied, the licensee
would have to comply with the fatigue rules in 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d). This would cause unnecessary burden on the licensee, without a
significant benefit in environmental impacts. 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 the
St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final Environmental
Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 (NUREG-
0842), dated April 1982; and, the plant-specific Supplement 11 to
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants'' (GEIS). Supplement 11 of the GEIS,
issued on May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of operating licenses
DPR-67 and NPF-16 for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an additional
20 years of operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 7, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Florida State official, William A Passetti of
the Bureau of Radiation Control, 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 October 16, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092990394). 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 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 800-
397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day of November 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29935 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
