Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 28481-28482 [2011-12044]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. These documents
may also be viewed electronically on
the public computers located at the
NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a
fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of May, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director, Decommissioning and
Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011–12039 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324; NRC–
2011–0107]
Carolina Power & Light Company;
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units
1 and 2; Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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) 26.9, ‘‘Specific
exemptions,’’ from paragraphs (c) and
(d) of 10 CFR 26.205, ‘‘Work hours,’’ for
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR 71
and DPR–62, issued to Carolina Power
& Light Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2,
located in Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21,
‘‘Criteria for and identification of
licensing and regulatory actions
requiring environmental assessments,’’
the NRC performed an environmental
assessment and concluded that the
proposed action will have no significant
environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would consider
approval of an exemption for BSEP,
Units 1 and 2 from certain requirements
of 10 CFR part 26, ‘‘Fitness for duty
programs.’’ Specifically, the licensee
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
requested approval of an exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR
26.205(c), ‘‘Work hours scheduling,’’ and
(d), ‘‘Work hour controls,’’ during
declaration of severe weather conditions
involving tropical storm or hurricane
force winds. The licensee in its request
stated that during these conditions,
adherence to all work hour control
requirements could impede the ability
to respond to a plant emergency and
ensure that the plant reaches and
maintains a safe and secure status.
The licensee specifically stated that
the exemption would only apply to
severe weather conditions where
tropical storm or hurricane force winds
are predicted onsite; requiring the
sequestering of the BSEP personnel.
The proposed exemption will allow
the licensee to not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d), during the period of time defined by
the entry condition until the exit
condition. The licensee needs the
proposed exemption to support effective
response to severe weather conditions
when travel to and from the BSEP site
may not be safe or even possible. During
these times, the licensee sequesters
sufficient individuals, including
covered workers, to staff two 12-hour
shifts to maintain the safe and secure
operation of the facility.
The exemption would only apply to
individuals designated as the storm
crew who perform duties specified in 10
CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5), namely,
(1) Operating or onsite directing of the
operation of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) that a risk-informed
evaluation process has shown to be
significant to public health and safety;
(2) performing health physics or
chemistry duties required as a member
of the onsite emergency response
organization minimum shift
complement; (3) performing the duties
of a fire brigade member who is
responsible for understanding the
effects of fire and fire suppressants on
safe shutdown capability; (4) performing
maintenance or onsite directing of the
maintenance of SSCs that a riskinformed evaluation process has shown
to be significant to public health and
safety; and (5) performing security
duties as an armed security force officer,
alarm station operator, response team
leader, or watchperson. When storm
crew sequestering exit conditions are
met, full compliance with 10 CFR
26.205(c) and (d) will be required.
Since 10 CFR 26.207(d), ‘‘Plant
emergencies,’’ already provides an
exception for the time period associated
with a declared emergency, the
exemption requested per 10 CFR 26.9
only applies to the applicable time
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28481
periods prior to and following the 10
CFR 26.207(d) exception, requiring the
sequestering storm crew at BSEP, Units
1 and 2.
The proposed action does not involve
any physical changes to the reactor,
fuel, plant, structures, support
structures, water, or land at the BSEP,
Units 1 and 2, site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 16, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated January 27, March 7, and
April 13, 2011.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The 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 has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that there are no environmental impacts
associated with the proposed
exemption. The details of the staff’s
safety evaluation will be provided in the
exemption, if approved by the NRC, that
will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation.
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 occupational or
public 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 any foreseeable
impacts to land, air, or water resources,
including impacts to biota. In addition,
there are also no known socioeconomic
or environmental justice impacts
associated with such proposed action.
Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
28482
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
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 exemption
request would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. If the
proposed action was denied, the
licensee would have to comply with the
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 for the BSEP dated January
1976, and the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437,
Supplement 25, dated March 2006
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML060900480).
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on April 16, 2011, the NRC staff
consulted with the North Carolina State
official, Mr. William Lee Cox of the
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of
No Significant Impact,’’ and on the basis
of the above 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 December 16, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103630405), as
supplemented by letters dated January
27, March 7, and April 13, 2011
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110730275,
ML110400193, and ML11110A021).
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–
1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day
of May 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–12044 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–64479; File No. 81–937]
Notice of an Application of BF
Enterprises, Inc. Under Section 12(h)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
May 12, 2011.
The Securities and Exchange
Commission gives notice that BF
Enterprises, Inc. has filed an application
under Section 12(h) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. BF Enterprises
asks the Commission to issue an order
exempting the company from the
requirement to register its common
stock under Section 12(g) of the
Exchange Act. In its application, BF
Enterprises asserts that exemptive relief
would be consistent with the standards
articulated in Section 12(h) because: (1)
As of December 31, 2010, BF Enterprises
has total assets of approximately $13.3
million and stockholders’ equity of
approximately $11.8 million; (2) BF
Enterprises has fewer than 85 total
beneficial owners of its common stock,
one of which has expressly stated under
oath that its shares are held indirectly
through 500 trust entities formed solely
for the purpose of attempting to cause
BF Enterprises to register its common
stock under Section 12(g) of the
Exchange Act; and (3) there is no
trading activity in, and an absence of
any regular market for, BF Enterprises’
common stock.
For a detailed statement of the
information presented, all persons are
referred to BF Enterprises’ application,
which is available on the Commission’s
Internet website at https://www.sec.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
rules/other.shtml and for website
viewing and printing in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
Station Place, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m.
The Commission also gives notice that
any interested person not later than June
16, 2011 may submit to the Commission
in writing its views on any substantial
facts bearing on the application or the
desirability of a hearing thereon.
Any such communication or request
may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/other.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number 81–937 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
Station Place, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number 81–937. This file number
should be included on the subject line
if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/other.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the application filed
with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
application between the Commission
and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in
accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
Station Place, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received
will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should be submitted on or before June
16, 2011.
Persons who request a hearing or
advice as to whether a hearing is
ordered will receive any notices and
orders issued in this matter, including
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28481-28482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; NRC-2011-0107]
Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric 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 exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 26.9, ``Specific exemptions,'' from paragraphs (c)
and (d) of 10 CFR 26.205, ``Work hours,'' for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR 71 and DPR-62, issued to Carolina Power & Light
Company (the licensee), for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification
of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental
assessments,'' the NRC performed an environmental assessment and
concluded that the proposed action will have no significant
environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would consider approval of an exemption for
BSEP, Units 1 and 2 from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 26,
``Fitness for duty programs.'' Specifically, the licensee requested
approval of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c),
``Work hours scheduling,'' and (d), ``Work hour controls,'' during
declaration of severe weather conditions involving tropical storm or
hurricane force winds. The licensee in its request stated that during
these conditions, adherence to all work hour control requirements could
impede the ability to respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the
plant reaches and maintains a safe and secure status.
The licensee specifically stated that the exemption would only
apply to severe weather conditions where tropical storm or hurricane
force winds are predicted onsite; requiring the sequestering of the
BSEP personnel.
The proposed exemption will allow the licensee to not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d), during the period of time
defined by the entry condition until the exit condition. The licensee
needs the proposed exemption to support effective response to severe
weather conditions when travel to and from the BSEP site may not be
safe or even possible. During these times, the licensee sequesters
sufficient individuals, including covered workers, to staff two 12-hour
shifts to maintain the safe and secure operation of the facility.
The exemption would only apply to individuals designated as the
storm crew who perform duties specified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through
(a)(5), namely, (1) Operating or onsite directing of the operation of
structures, systems and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed
evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and
safety; (2) performing health physics or chemistry duties required as a
member of the onsite emergency response organization minimum shift
complement; (3) performing the duties of a fire brigade member who is
responsible for understanding the effects of fire and fire suppressants
on safe shutdown capability; (4) performing maintenance or onsite
directing of the maintenance of SSCs that a risk-informed evaluation
process has shown to be significant to public health and safety; and
(5) performing security duties as an armed security force officer,
alarm station operator, response team leader, or watchperson. When
storm crew sequestering exit conditions are met, full compliance with
10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) will be required.
Since 10 CFR 26.207(d), ``Plant emergencies,'' already provides an
exception for the time period associated with a declared emergency, the
exemption requested per 10 CFR 26.9 only applies to the applicable time
periods prior to and following the 10 CFR 26.207(d) exception,
requiring the sequestering storm crew at BSEP, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed action does not involve any physical changes to the
reactor, fuel, plant, structures, support structures, water, or land at
the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 16, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated
January 27, March 7, and April 13, 2011.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The 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 has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with the
proposed exemption. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption, if approved by the NRC, that will be
issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to
the regulation.
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 occupational or public 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 any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water
resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are also no
known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with
such proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental
[[Page 28482]]
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 exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee
would have to comply with the 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 for the BSEP
dated January 1976, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Supplement 25, dated
March 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML060900480).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 16, 2011, the NRC
staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. William Lee
Cox of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ``Finding of No Significant Impact,'' and
on the basis of the above 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 December 16, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103630405), as supplemented by letters dated January 27, March 7, and
April 13, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110730275, ML110400193, and
ML11110A021). 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-1F21, 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 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send
an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-12044 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
