Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact for Exemptions From the Implementation Deadline for New Security Requirements, 187-189 [2010-33073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices
where the weather conditions change
rapidly and dramatically. Vessels
working in these high latitudes are
subject to demanding and often
dangerous conditions due to low
temperatures, high winds, and rough
seas. Failure to meet any of the
technical requirements would have
severe negative consequences for the
project with regard to operational safety.
The market research for this
exemption was done by the shipyard in
the summer of 2010 and verified by the
UAF project team in July 2010. As noted
in UAF’s request for this exemption, the
shipyard performed market research by
reviewing industry publications, the
Internet (including the Marine
Electronics Journal Web site) and
contacting various electronic supply
companies in order to assess whether
there exists a domestic capability to
provide a weather fax that meets the
necessary requirements for safe and
successful operation world-wide.
Eighteen (18) potential vendors were
identified with only six (6)
manufacturing a weather fax. Of the six,
only one (1) was a U.S. manufacturer.
The shipyard then compared the
existing product lines for compliance
with the weather fax technical
specifications and requirements as
identified above. It was found that the
one U.S. manufacturer did not make a
unit that was stand-alone. Instead, the
system uses a personal computer to
provide both the human interface and
printing capability of the weather
charts. This requires the bridge watch to
actively manage and interface with the
system, which takes their attention from
other navigational and operational
duties. This distraction increases the
likelihood of collision, grounding,
failure to adequately monitor over-theside science operations, and
inadvertently sailing into dangerous
weather conditions. Because of this, all
modern ocean-going vessels have at
least one stand-alone weather fax
system.
The project’s conclusion is there are
no U.S. manufacturers who produce a
suitable weather fax unit that meets all
of the ARRV requirements so an
exemption to the Buy American
requirements is necessary.
In the absence of a domestic supplier
that could provide a requirementscompliant weather fax, UAF requested
that NSF issue a Section 1605
exemption determination with respect
to the purchase of a foreign-supplied,
requirements-compliant weather fax, so
that the vessel will meet the specific
design and technical requirements
which, as explained above, are
necessary for this vessel to be able to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
perform its mission safely and
successfully. Furthermore, the
shipyard’s market research as verified
by UAF indicated that a weather fax
compliant with the ARRV’s technical
specifications and requirements is
commercially available from foreign
vendors within their standard product
lines.
NSF’s Division of Acquisition and
Cooperative Support (DACS) and other
NSF program staff reviewed the UAF
exemption request submittal, found that
it was complete, and determined that
sufficient technical information was
provided in order for NSF to evaluate
the exemption request and to conclude
that an exemption is needed and should
be granted.
III. Exemption
On October 22, 2010, based on the
finding that no domestically produced
weather fax met all of the ARRV’s
technical specifications and
requirements and pursuant to section
1605(b), the NSF Chief Financial
Officer, in accordance with a delegation
order from the Director of the agency,
granted a limited project exemption of
the Recovery Act’s Buy American
requirements with respect to the
procurement of the marine weather fax.
Dated: December 23, 2010.
Lawrence Rudolph,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010–33044 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Programmatic Environmental
Assessment and Final Finding of No
Significant Impact for Exemptions
From the Implementation Deadline for
New Security Requirements
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has received and
expects to receive exemption requests
from several nuclear power reactor
licensees. Each expected exemption
request will be from the implementation
date requirement of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 73.55.
The NRC is authorized to issue
exemptions pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
has performed a programmatic
environmental assessment of these
exemption requests. The NRC
concluded that the proposed action
constitutes administrative (timing)
changes that would not impact the
environmental resources near any
specified nuclear power plant. Based
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
187
upon the results of this programmatic
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action may include
issuing exemptions to nuclear power
plant licensees for up to 40 nuclear
power plant sites, all of which have
already been granted plant-specific
exemptions granting additional time to
implement some of the new
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. These
sites are:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2,
and 3
Brunswick Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2
Columbia Generating Station
Cooper Nuclear Station
Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit
No. 1
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Fermi 2
Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit
No. 2
Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1,
2 and 3
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2,
and 3
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2
Palisades Nuclear Plant
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units
1, 2, and 3
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant,
Units 1 and 2
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units
2 and 3
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
188
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices
Wolf Creek Generating Station
Specifically, the licensees for each of
these plants may propose an additional
alternate date for full compliance
beyond the March 31, 2010 date
required by 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), and if
approved by the NRC, would be granted
a plant-specific exemption. The
proposed action, an exemption
extending the schedule for completion
of actions required by the revised 10
CFR 73.55, would not involve any
physical changes to the reactor(s), fuel,
plant structures, support structures,
land, or water at each nuclear power
plant site. If granted, a plant-specific
safety evaluation will be included in the
letter to the licensee approving the
exemption from the regulation.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
continue to exempt up to 40 nuclear
power plant sites from being in full
compliance with new requirements
contained in 10 CFR 73.55. The original
implementation date was March 31,
2010 and previous exemptions were
granted to several licensees from
meeting that date. Another round of
exemptions is needed to provide these
licensees with additional time to
comply with the rule requirements.
While licensees completed much of the
work required by the 10 CFR 73.55 rule
change at their plants by the March 31,
2010 implementation date, affected
licensees require additional time to
complete all newly required
modifications.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 73.55,
requires NRC nuclear power plant
licensees to implement various physical
protection requirements to prevent
radiological sabotage. The NRC has
completed its environmental assessment
of the proposed action, and has
concluded that, should NRC decide to
grant a 10 CFR 73.55 compliance date
exemption to these plants, extending the
implementation deadline would not
significantly affect plant safety and
would not significantly affect the
probability of an accident.
The proposed action would not
increase the radiological hazard beyond
what was analyzed in the environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact made by the Commission in
promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR
73.55 as discussed in the Federal
Register notice dated March 27, 2009
(74 FR 13926). There would be no
change to radioactive effluents and
emissions that would increase radiation
exposures to plant workers and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
members of the public. Therefore, no
radiological impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed action.
In addition, there will be no
construction or major renovation of any
buildings or structures, nor any ground
disturbing activities associated with an
extension of the compliance deadline.
Licensees would not increase or
decrease their workforce, nor is traffic to
or around any of the subject power
plants expected to increase, as a result
of an extension of the compliance
deadline. Therefore, providing licensees
with additional time to comply with the
revised requirements of 10 CFR 73.55
would not alter land use, air quality,
and water use (quality and quantity)
conditions or National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits
at each of the nuclear power plants that
may be the subject of an exemption
request. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat
in the vicinity of each power plant;
threatened, endangered, and protected
species under the Endangered Species
Act; and essential fish habitat covered
by the Magnuson-Stevens Act would not
be affected. In addition, historic and
cultural resources, socioeconomic
conditions, and minority and lowincome populations in the vicinity of
each power plant would also not be
affected by this action.
As previously noted, in promulgating
its amendments to 10 CFR part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment of the rule change and
published a finding of no significant
impact (10 CFR parts 50, 52, 72, and 73,
Power Reactor Security Requirements,
74 FR 13926 (March 27, 2009)). Thus,
through the proposed action, the
Commission would be granting
additional time for the licensees to
comply with regulatory requirements for
which the Commission has already
found no significant impact.
For the foregoing reasons, the NRC
concludes that there would be no
significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the extension of the
implementation date of the new
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC considered denial of the
proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the exemption
requests would result in no change in
current environmental conditions at
each of the nuclear power plants.
Denial of the exemption requests
would result in the licensees being in
non-compliance with 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1)
and thus, subject to NRC enforcement
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
action. The end result, however, would
still be ultimate licensee compliance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,
but with the added expense to both the
NRC and the licensees of any
enforcement actions. The NRC
concludes that the environmental
impacts of the proposed exemption and
the ‘‘no action’’ alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve
the use of any different resources than
those considered in the final
environmental statements for the
granting of the operating licenses for
these nuclear power plants and for those
plants that have had their licenses
renewed, in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
published in May 1996, and its
supplements published from 1999 to the
present.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the above
environmental assessment, which in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), is
incorporated into this finding of no
significant impact by reference, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action
constitutes an administrative change
(timing) that would 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.
Further details with respect to the
proposed action will be available as
individual licensees request
exemptions. Portions of these requests
may contain proprietary and safeguards
information and, accordingly, will 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, Public File
Area 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 20th day
of December 2010.
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Pascarelli,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch III–1, Division
of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–33073 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0265]
Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance,
Availability
II. Further Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance and
Availability of Regulatory Guide 3.71,
Revision 2, ‘‘Nuclear Criticality Safety
Standards for Fuels and Material
Facilities.’’
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tamara D. Powell, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–492–
3211 or e-mail: Tamara.Powell@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision
to an existing guide in the agency’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public information such
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the agency’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 3.71,
entitled, ‘‘Nuclear Criticality Safety
Standards for Fuels and Material
Facilities,’’ was issued with a temporary
identification as Draft Regulatory Guide,
DG–3030. Regulatory Guide 3.71
provides applicants, licensees, and
certificate holders with updated
guidance concerning criticality safety
standards that the NRC has endorsed for
use with nuclear fuels and material
facilities. As such, Regulatory Guide
3.71 describes methods that the NRC
staff considers acceptable for complying
with the NRC’s regulations in Title 10,
of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts
70, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Special
Nuclear Material,’’ and 76, ‘‘Certification
of Gaseous Diffusion Plants’’ (10 CFR
parts 70 and 76).
The NRC staff has revised Regulatory
Guide 3.71 to provide guidance on
complying with these portions of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
NRC’s regulations. This guide describes
procedures for preventing nuclear
criticality accidents in operations that
involve handling, processing, storing,
and/or transporting special nuclear
material at fuel and material facilities. It
also endorses specific nuclear criticality
safety standards developed by the
American Nuclear Society’s Standards
Subcommittee 8 (ANS–8), ‘‘Operations
with Fissionable Materials Outside
Reactors.’’ Regulatory Guide 3.71 is not
intended for use by nuclear reactor
licensees.
In July 2010, DG–3030 was published
with a public comment period of 60
days from the issuance of the guide. The
public comment period closed on
September 29, 2010. The staff’s
responses to the public comments
received are located in the NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System under Accession
Number ML103210349. Electronic
copies of Regulatory guide 3.71,
Revision 2 are available through the
NRC’s public Web site under
‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/.
In addition, regulatory guides are
available for inspection at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR) located at
Room O–1F 21, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852–2738. The PDR’s
mailing address is USNRC PDR,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. The PDR
can also be reached by telephone: 301–
415–4737 or 800–397–4209, by fax:
301–415–3548, and by e-mail:
pdr@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are not
copyrighted, and Commission approval
is not required to reproduce them.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day
of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Ridgely,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development
Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 2010–33072 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
189
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0444]
Notice of Availability of the Models for
Plant-Specific Adoption of Technical
Specifications Task Force Traveler
TSTF–513, Revision 3, ‘‘Revise PWR
Operability Requirements and Actions
for RCS Leakage Instrumentation’’
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
SUMMARY: As part of the consolidated
line item improvement process (CLIIP),
the NRC is announcing the availability
of the model application (with model no
significant hazards consideration
determination) and model safety
evaluation (SE) for the plant-specific
adoption of Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–513,
Revision 3, ‘‘Revise PWR [pressurized
water reactor] Operability Requirements
and Actions for RCS [reactor coolant
system] Leakage Instrumentation.’’
TSTF–513, Revision 3, is available in
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) under
Accession Number ML102360355. The
proposed changes would revise the
Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable RCS leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and
establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or
more required monitors are inoperable.
Changes to the Technical Specifications
(TS) Bases are included, which reflect
the proposed changes and more
accurately reflect the contents of the
facility design bases related to the
operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. The CLIIP model SE
will facilitate expedited approval of
plant-specific adoption of TSTF–513,
Revision 3.
Documents: You can access publicly
available documents related to this
notice using the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 187-189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33073]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No
Significant Impact for Exemptions From the Implementation Deadline for
New Security Requirements
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
expects to receive exemption requests from several nuclear power
reactor licensees. Each expected exemption request will be from the
implementation date requirement of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 73.55. The NRC is authorized to issue exemptions
pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has
performed a programmatic environmental assessment of these exemption
requests. The NRC concluded that the proposed action constitutes
administrative (timing) changes that would not impact the environmental
resources near any specified nuclear power plant. Based upon the
results of this programmatic environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action may include issuing exemptions to nuclear power
plant licensees for up to 40 nuclear power plant sites, all of which
have already been granted plant-specific exemptions granting additional
time to implement some of the new requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. These
sites are:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3
Brunswick Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Columbia Generating Station
Cooper Nuclear Station
Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Fermi 2
Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2
Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Palisades Nuclear Plant
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
[[Page 188]]
Wolf Creek Generating Station
Specifically, the licensees for each of these plants may propose an
additional alternate date for full compliance beyond the March 31, 2010
date required by 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), and if approved by the NRC, would
be granted a plant-specific exemption. The proposed action, an
exemption extending the schedule for completion of actions required by
the revised 10 CFR 73.55, would not involve any physical changes to the
reactor(s), fuel, plant structures, support structures, land, or water
at each nuclear power plant site. If granted, a plant-specific safety
evaluation will be included in the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption from the regulation.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to continue to exempt up to 40
nuclear power plant sites from being in full compliance with new
requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55. The original implementation
date was March 31, 2010 and previous exemptions were granted to several
licensees from meeting that date. Another round of exemptions is needed
to provide these licensees with additional time to comply with the rule
requirements. While licensees completed much of the work required by
the 10 CFR 73.55 rule change at their plants by the March 31, 2010
implementation date, affected licensees require additional time to
complete all newly required modifications.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 73.55, requires NRC nuclear power plant
licensees to implement various physical protection requirements to
prevent radiological sabotage. The NRC has completed its environmental
assessment of the proposed action, and has concluded that, should NRC
decide to grant a 10 CFR 73.55 compliance date exemption to these
plants, extending the implementation deadline would not significantly
affect plant safety and would not significantly affect the probability
of an accident.
The proposed action would not increase the radiological hazard
beyond what was analyzed in the environmental assessment and finding of
no significant impact made by the Commission in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 as discussed in the Federal Register notice
dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There would be no change to
radioactive effluents and emissions that would increase radiation
exposures to plant workers and members of the public. Therefore, no
radiological impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action.
In addition, there will be no construction or major renovation of
any buildings or structures, nor any ground disturbing activities
associated with an extension of the compliance deadline. Licensees
would not increase or decrease their workforce, nor is traffic to or
around any of the subject power plants expected to increase, as a
result of an extension of the compliance deadline. Therefore, providing
licensees with additional time to comply with the revised requirements
of 10 CFR 73.55 would not alter land use, air quality, and water use
(quality and quantity) conditions or National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits at each of the nuclear power plants that may
be the subject of an exemption request. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat
in the vicinity of each power plant; threatened, endangered, and
protected species under the Endangered Species Act; and essential fish
habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act would not be affected. In
addition, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions,
and minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of each power
plant would also not be affected by this action.
As previously noted, in promulgating its amendments to 10 CFR part
73, the Commission prepared an environmental assessment of the rule
change and published a finding of no significant impact (10 CFR parts
50, 52, 72, and 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 13926
(March 27, 2009)). Thus, through the proposed action, the Commission
would be granting additional time for the licensees to comply with
regulatory requirements for which the Commission has already found no
significant impact.
For the foregoing reasons, the NRC concludes that there would be no
significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts
associated with the extension of the implementation date of the new
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC considered denial
of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial
of the exemption requests would result in no change in current
environmental conditions at each of the nuclear power plants.
Denial of the exemption requests would result in the licensees
being in non-compliance with 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1) and thus, subject to
NRC enforcement action. The end result, however, would still be
ultimate licensee compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, but
with the added expense to both the NRC and the licensees of any
enforcement actions. The NRC concludes that the environmental impacts
of the proposed exemption and the ``no action'' alternative are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources than those considered in the final environmental statements
for the granting of the operating licenses for these nuclear power
plants and for those plants that have had their licenses renewed, in
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' published in May 1996, and its supplements
published from 1999 to the present.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the above environmental assessment, which in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), is incorporated into this finding
of no significant impact by reference, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action constitutes an administrative change (timing) that
would 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.
Further details with respect to the proposed action will be
available as individual licensees request exemptions. Portions of these
requests may contain proprietary and safeguards information and,
accordingly, will 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, Public File Area
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 20th day of December 2010.
[[Page 189]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Pascarelli,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-33073 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
