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 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: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ doc-comment/omb/index.html. 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 http:// 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, http://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, http://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