Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Exemption for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1 License DPR-012, York and Lancaster Counties, PA, 37842-37843 [2011-16150]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37842
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Notices
methods and training to protect the
trailing cable(s) against damage caused
by overheating cable(s) due to excessive
cable stored on the cable reel(s) and
adjusting stored cable behind the cable
anchor(s) as tramming distances change;
and (d) proper procedures for examining
the trailing cable(s) to ensure that the
cable(s) are in safe operating condition
by a visual inspection of the entirety of
the cable(s), observing the insulation,
the integrity of the splices, and
observing for nicks and abrasions. (23)
Within 60 days after this proposed
decision and order becomes final,
proposed revisions for the approved
Part 48 training plan will be submitted
to the District Manager. The petitioner
asserts that the proposed alternative
method will at all times provide no less
than the same measure of protection
afforded by the existing standard.
Docket Number: M–2011–015–C.
Petitioner: TK Mining Services, LLC,
12250 Hwy 12, Weston, Colorado 81091.
Mine: New Elk Mine, MSHA Mine I.D
No. 05–00296, located in Las Animas
County, Colorado.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503
(Permissible electric face equipment;
maintenance)
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit the use of nonpermissible survey, diagnostic,
photographic and programming
equipment throughout the entire mine.
The petitioner proposes to use the nonpermissible equipment to help with
development, exploration of entries, and
maintenance of mining equipment. The
petitioner states that: (1) The equipment
is very vital in keeping the entries going
in the proper direction and maintaining
equipment for the safety of the miners;
(2) the equipment will be examined by
a qualified person for defects prior to
usage underground; (3) a qualified
person will thoroughly examine for
methane and other hazardous
conditions prior to use and every 20
minutes or sooner if needed; and (4) all
equipment and activity will stop
immediately if the surrounding mine’s
atmosphere contains 1.0 percent or
greater of methane, or if hazardous
concentrations of coal dust or other
hazards are observed. The petitioner
asserts that every precaution will be
taken to guarantee the safety of every
miner working at the New Elk Mine. If
the situation is not safe this equipment
will not be used until the area is safe or
made safe, and at no time will a miner
be in danger.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: June 22, 2011.
Patricia W. Silvey,
Certifying Officer .
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2011–16084 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant Impact.
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
Sunshine Act Meeting
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July
12, 2011.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The two items are open to the
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
8193A Marine Accident Report—
Collision Between U.S. Coast Guard
Vessel CG 33118 and Sea Ray
Recreational Vessel CF 2607 PZ,
San Diego Harbor, California,
December 20, 2009.
8102A Aircraft Accident Report—Loss
of Control While Maneuvering,
Pilatus PC–12, N128CM, Butte,
Montana, March 22, 2009.
News Media Contact: Telephone:
(202) 314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by
Friday, July 8, 2011.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi
Bing, (202) 314–6403 or by e-mail at
bingc@ntsb.gov.
TIME AND DATE:
Dated: June 24, 2010.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–16297 Filed 6–24–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0141; Docket No. 50–171]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to Exemption for the Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1
License DPR–012, York and Lancaster
Counties, PA
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
John
Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T8F5, Washington, DC 20555–00001.
Telephone: 301–415–3017; e-mail:
john.hickman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff is considering a
request dated November 18, 2010, by
Exelon Nuclear (Exelon, the licensee)
requesting exemptions from the security
requirements in 10 CFR part 73 and 10
CFR 50.54(p) for the Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Unit 1.
This Environmental Assessment (EA)
has been developed in accordance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would eliminate
the security plan requirements from the
10 CFR part 50 licensed site because the
PBAPS Unit 1 spent nuclear fuel has
been removed from the site and the
spent fuel pool is drained and
decontaminated. There is no longer any
special nuclear material (SNM) located
within PBAPS Unit 1 other than that
contained in plant systems as residual
contamination.
Part of this proposed action meets the
categorical exclusion provision in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(25), as part of this action
is an exemption from the requirements
of the Commission’s regulations and (i)
there is no significant hazards
consideration; (ii) there is no significant
change in the types or significant
increase in the amounts of any effluents
that may be released offsite; (iii) there is
no significant increase in individual or
cumulative public or occupational
radiation exposure; (iv) there is no
significant construction impact; (v)
there is no significant increase in the
potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents; and (vi) the
requirements from which an exemption
is sought involve safeguard plans.
Therefore, this part of the action does
not require either an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact
statement. This environmental
assessment was prepared for the part of
the proposed action not involving
safeguards plans.
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Notices
Need for Proposed Action
Sections 50.54 and 73.55 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations
require that licensees establish and
maintain physical protection and
security for activities involving SNM
within the 10 CFR part 50 licensed area
of a facility. The proposed action is
needed because there is no longer any
nuclear fuel in the 10 CFR part 50
licensed facility that requires protection
against radiological sabotage or
diversion. The proposed action will
allow the licensee to conserve resources
for decommissioning activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that exempting the facility from
physical protection security
requirements will not have any adverse
environmental impacts. There will be
minor savings of energy and vehicular
use associated with the security force no
longer performing patrols, checks, and
normal security functions.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes
are being made in the types of any
effluents that may be released off site,
and 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 involve any historic
sites. It does not affect non-radiological
plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there
are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The alternative is the no-action
alternative, under which the staff would
deny the exemption request. This denial
of the request would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the no-action alternative are
similar, therefore the no-action
alternative is not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action will not significantly
impact the quality of the human
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
environment, and that the proposed
action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on May 12, 2011, the staff consulted the
Pennsylvania State Department of
Environmental Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action is of a procedural
nature, and will not affect listed species
or critical habitat. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act. The
NRC staff has also determined that the
proposed action is not the type of
activity that has the potential to cause
effects on historic properties. Therefore,
no further consultation is required
under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA as
part of its review of the proposed action.
On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds
that there are no significant
environmental impacts from the
proposed action, and that preparation of
an environmental impact statement is
not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC
has determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated November 18, 2010, [ADAMS
Accession Number ML103230031].
Documents related to this action,
including the application and
supporting documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents.
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@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 20th day
of June, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37843
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. 2011–16150 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0059; Docket Nos. 50–275 and
50–323]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1 and
2; Exemption
1.0 Background
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E, the licensee) is the holder of
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–80
and DPR–82, which authorize operation
of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit
1 and 2 (DCPP). The licenses provide,
among other things, that the facility is
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two
pressurized-water reactors located in
San Luis Obispo County, California.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 73, ‘‘Physical
protection of plants and materials,’’
Section 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for
physical protection of licensed activities
in nuclear power reactors against
radiological sabotage,’’ published March
27, 2009, effective May 26, 2009, with
a full implementation date of March 31,
2010, requires licensees to protect, with
high assurance, against radiological
sabotage by designing and
implementing comprehensive site
security programs. The amendments to
10 CFR 73.55 published in the Federal
Register on March 27, 2009 (74 FR
13926), establish and update generically
applicable security requirements similar
to those previously imposed by
Commission orders issued after the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
and implemented by the licensees. In
addition, the amendments to 10 CFR
73.55 include additional requirements
to further enhance site security based
upon insights gained from
implementation of the post September
11, 2001, security orders. It is from one
of these additional requirements that
PG&E now seeks an exemption from the
implementation date. All other physical
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37842-37843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16150]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0141; Docket No. 50-171]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to Exemption for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1
License DPR-012, York and Lancaster Counties, PA
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-00001.
Telephone: 301-415-3017; e-mail: john.hickman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a
request dated November 18, 2010, by Exelon Nuclear (Exelon, the
licensee) requesting exemptions from the security requirements in 10
CFR part 73 and 10 CFR 50.54(p) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station (PBAPS) Unit 1.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been developed in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would eliminate the security plan requirements
from the 10 CFR part 50 licensed site because the PBAPS Unit 1 spent
nuclear fuel has been removed from the site and the spent fuel pool is
drained and decontaminated. There is no longer any special nuclear
material (SNM) located within PBAPS Unit 1 other than that contained in
plant systems as residual contamination.
Part of this proposed action meets the categorical exclusion
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), as part of this action is an
exemption from the requirements of the Commission's regulations and (i)
there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no
significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts
of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no
significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational
radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact;
(v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements
from which an exemption is sought involve safeguard plans. Therefore,
this part of the action does not require either an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement. This environmental
assessment was prepared for the part of the proposed action not
involving safeguards plans.
[[Page 37843]]
Need for Proposed Action
Sections 50.54 and 73.55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations require that licensees establish and maintain physical
protection and security for activities involving SNM within the 10 CFR
part 50 licensed area of a facility. The proposed action is needed
because there is no longer any nuclear fuel in the 10 CFR part 50
licensed facility that requires protection against radiological
sabotage or diversion. The proposed action will allow the licensee to
conserve resources for decommissioning activities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that exempting the facility from physical protection security
requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts. There
will be minor savings of energy and vehicular use associated with the
security force no longer performing patrols, checks, and normal
security functions.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released off site, and 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 non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The alternative is the no-action alternative, under which the staff
would deny the exemption request. This denial of the request would
result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental
impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are
similar, therefore the no-action alternative is not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the
proposed action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 12, 2011, the staff
consulted the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental
Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA as part of its review of the
proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are
no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 18, 2010, [ADAMS Accession Number
ML103230031]. Documents related to this action, including the
application and supporting documentation, are available electronically
at the NRC's Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From
this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents.
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@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 20th day of June, 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. 2011-16150 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
