Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Millstone Power Station, Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 39746-39747 [2012-16406]
Download as PDF
39746
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2012 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC
posts all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as
enters the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information in
their comment submissions that they do
not want to be publicly disclosed. Your
request should state that the NRC will
not edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making
the comment submissions available to
the public or entering the comment
submissions into ADAMS.
II. Further Information
The NRC is issuing for public
comment a draft guide in the NRC’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public such information
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the NRC’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.
The draft regulatory guide, entitled,
‘‘Fuel Oil Systems for Emergency Power
Supplies,’’ is temporarily identified by
its task number, DG–1282. The DG–1282
is proposed revision 2 of Regulatory
Guide 1.137, ‘‘Fuel Oil Systems for
Standby Diesel Generators’’ dated April
1979.
This guide describes a method that
the NRC staff considers acceptable for
use in complying with the
Commission’s requirements regarding
fuel oil systems for safety-related
emergency diesel generators and oilfueled gas turbine generators, including
assurance of adequate fuel oil quality.
Proper quantity and quality of fuel oil
is necessary for proper operation of the
emergency diesel generators and gas
turbine generators. Appendix C to
ANSI/ANS–59.51–1997,
‘‘Recommended Fuel Oil Practices,’’
addresses recommended practices for
maintaining fuel oil quantity and
quality. Although not a mandatory part
of the standard, the NRC staff believes
Appendix C serves as an acceptable
basis for a program to maintain the
quality of fuel oil, with additions,
deletions, and clarifications as
contained in this guide.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of June, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carol Moyer,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development
Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 2012–16426 Filed 7–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–336; NRC–2012–0158]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Millstone Power Station, Unit 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 the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 50, Appendix R, ‘‘Fire Protection
Program for Nuclear Power Facilities
Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,’’ for
Facility Operating License No. DPR–65
issued to Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc. (DNC or the licensee),
for operation of the Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) located in town
of Waterford, CT. Therefore, as required
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC staff
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC
staff is issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
DNC proposed that the NRC grant
exemptions to certain NRC requirements
pertaining to the NRC fire regulations.
The proposed action is detailed in the
licensee’s application dated June 30,
2011, as supplemented by letter dated
February 29, 2012. The licensee’s
application and supplemental
submission are accessible electronically
from the NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) under Accession Nos.
ML11188A213 and ML12069A016.
Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS)
2006–10, ‘‘Regulatory Expectations With
Appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 Operator
Manual Actions,’’ documents the NRC
position on the use of operator manual
actions (OMAs) as part of a compliance
strategy to meet the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, appendix R, Section III.G.2.
The NRC requires plants which credit
manual actions for 10 CFR part 50,
appendix R, Section III.G.2 compliance
to obtain NRC approval for the manual
actions using the exemption process in
accordance with the requirements of 10
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CFR 50.12. In response, the licensee
proposed this licensing action which
would exempt MPS2 from certain
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
appendix R, Section III.G.2.
DNC proposed a number of OMAs in
lieu of one of the means specified in
Section III.G.2 to ensure a train of
equipment used for hot shutdown is
available when redundant trains are in
the same fire area. Therefore, DNC
requested exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 for MPS2
to the extent that OMAs are necessary
to achieve and maintain hot shutdown
for fire areas in which both trains of
safe-shutdown cables or equipment are
located in the same fire area.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is requested to
permit the licensee an alternate method
from those specified in 10 CFR part 50,
to achieve and maintain hot shutdown
conditions in the event of a fire that
could disable electrical cables and
equipment in the fire areas of MPS2
listed in the licensee’s request for
exemption.
The criteria for granting specific
exemptions from 10 CFR part 50
regulations are specified in 10 CFR
50.12. In accordance with 10 CFR
50.12(a)(1), the NRC is authorized to
grant an exemption upon determining
that the exemption is authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
evaluation of the environmental impact
of the proposed action. The NRC staff
has concluded that such actions would
not adversely affect the environment.
The proposed action would not result in
an increased radiological hazard. There
will be no change to the radioactive
effluent releases that effect radiation
exposures to plant workers and
members of the public. No changes will
be made to plant structures or the site
property. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
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
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2012 / Notices
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Fisheries Management Act are
expected. There are no impacts to
historical and cultural resources. There
would be no impact to socioeconomic
resources. Therefore, no changes or
different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as
a result of the proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action. The details of the
staff’s safety evaluation will be provided
in the exemption, when it is issued.
documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available
documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically
through the ADAMS in the NRC Library
at 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As alternatives to the proposed action,
the NRC staff is considering denial of
the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative) or requiring the
licensee to modify the facility to achieve
compliance with Appendix R. Denial of
the application would result in no
change in current environmental
impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative
action are similar.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of June 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Kim,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission’s 1973
‘‘Final Environmental Statement Related
to the Continuation of Construction of
Unit 2 and the Operation of Units 1 and
2, Millstone Nuclear Power Station.’’
Changes in Postal Rates
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On May 14, 2012, the NRC staff
consulted with the Connecticut State
official, Michael Firsick of the
Department of Environmental
Protection, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. Mr.
Firsick had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC staff 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
application dated June 30, 2011, as
supplemented by letter dated February
29, 2012. The licensee’s application and
supplemental submission are accessible
electronically under ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML11188A213 and ML12069A016.
Publicly available versions of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
[FR Doc. 2012–16406 Filed 7–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. MC2012–30; Order No. 1386]
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recently-filed Postal Service request to
add a padded flat rate envelope to its
Express Mail International product. This
notice addresses procedural steps
associated with the filing.
DATES: Replies to Postal Service
response to information request are due:
July 11, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot
submit their views electronically should
contact the person identified in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
telephone for advice on alternatives to
electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel
at 202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction. On June 25, 2012, the
Postal Service filed notice with the
Commission of a proposal characterized
as a minor classification change under
39 CFR parts 3090 and 3091, along with
a conforming revision to the Mail
Classification Schedule (MCS).1 The
SUMMARY:
of United States Postal Service of
Classification Changes, June 25, 2012 (Notice).
PO 00000
1 Notice
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39747
change adds the Express Mail
International (EMI) Padded Flat Rate
Envelope as a Flat Rate Envelope option
in the EMI product category. Notice at
1. The stated purpose of the change is
to increase customer Flat Rate Envelope
options.
In support of its filing, the Postal
Service states that the dimensions of the
EMI Padded Flat Rate Envelope (12.5
inches by 9.5 inches) are the same as
those of the EMI Flat Rate Envelope. It
states that the price for the Padded Flat
Rate Envelope ($29.25 to Canada and
$38.00 to all other countries that offer
EMI service) is the same as the price for
the current EMI Flat Rate Envelope and
EMI Legal Flat Rate Envelope. In
addition, it notes that all standards that
apply to the EMI Flat Rate Envelope and
EMI Legal Flat Rate Envelope (e.g.,
maximum weight limit of 20 pounds)
apply to the EMI Padded Flat Rate
Envelope. Id. The Postal Service asserts
that the changes are consistent with
39 U.S.C. 3642 and should be
incorporated by the Commission into
the MCS. Id. at 2.
The Commission establishes Docket
No. MC2012–30 for consideration of
matters related to the Postal Service’s
filing. It appoints Kenneth E.
Richardson to represent the interests of
the general public (Public
Representative) in this proceeding.
Interested persons may comment on the
proposed change and on the Postal
Service’s response to the matter
addressed below no later than July 11,
2012.
Information Request. The Postal
Service notes that it filed the instant
notice (affecting international mail
offerings) one business day after filing a
notice of changes in rates of general
applicability and concomitant
classification changes for a domestic
Express Mail Padded Flat Rate
Envelope. Id. (citing notice of the
United States Postal Service of Changes
in Rates of General Applicability for a
Competitive Product, Established in
Governors’ Decision No. 12–1, PRC
Docket No. CP2012–39, June 22, 2012).2
The instant notice would likewise
appear to effect a change in rates of
general applicability. Accordingly, the
Postal Service is requested to address,
no later than July 6, 2012, why a filing
similar to that made in Docket No.
CP2012–39 was not made with respect
to the change in EMI rates. If, on
reconsideration, the instant filing
should have been filed pursuant to
39 CFR part 3015, the Postal Service
2 The notices referred to in this order can be
accessed via the Commission’s Web site, (https://
www.prc.gov).
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39746-39747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16406]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336; NRC-2012-0158]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Millstone Power Station, Unit
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 the requirements of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, ``Fire
Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to
January 1, 1979,'' for Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 issued to
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC or the licensee), for operation
of the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) located in town of
Waterford, CT. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC staff
performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC staff is issuing a finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
DNC proposed that the NRC grant exemptions to certain NRC
requirements pertaining to the NRC fire regulations. The proposed
action is detailed in the licensee's application dated June 30, 2011,
as supplemented by letter dated February 29, 2012. The licensee's
application and supplemental submission are accessible electronically
from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) under Accession Nos. ML11188A213 and ML12069A016.
Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-10, ``Regulatory Expectations
With Appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 Operator Manual Actions,'' documents
the NRC position on the use of operator manual actions (OMAs) as part
of a compliance strategy to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
appendix R, Section III.G.2. The NRC requires plants which credit
manual actions for 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, Section III.G.2
compliance to obtain NRC approval for the manual actions using the
exemption process in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12.
In response, the licensee proposed this licensing action which would
exempt MPS2 from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R,
Section III.G.2.
DNC proposed a number of OMAs in lieu of one of the means specified
in Section III.G.2 to ensure a train of equipment used for hot shutdown
is available when redundant trains are in the same fire area.
Therefore, DNC requested exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR
part 50, appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 for MPS2 to the extent that OMAs
are necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown for fire areas in
which both trains of safe-shutdown cables or equipment are located in
the same fire area.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is requested to permit the licensee an
alternate method from those specified in 10 CFR part 50, to achieve and
maintain hot shutdown conditions in the event of a fire that could
disable electrical cables and equipment in the fire areas of MPS2
listed in the licensee's request for exemption.
The criteria for granting specific exemptions from 10 CFR part 50
regulations are specified in 10 CFR 50.12. In accordance with 10 CFR
50.12(a)(1), the NRC is authorized to grant an exemption upon
determining that the exemption is authorized by law, will not present
an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with
the common defense and security.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The NRC staff has concluded that such
actions would not adversely affect the environment. The proposed action
would not result in an increased radiological hazard. There will be no
change to the radioactive effluent releases that effect radiation
exposures to plant workers and members of the public. No changes will
be made to plant structures or the site property. Therefore, no changes
or different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of
the proposed exemption.
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
[[Page 39747]]
protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to
essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Management Act are expected. There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no impact to socioeconomic
resources. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The details
of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption,
when it is issued.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As alternatives to the proposed action, the NRC staff is
considering denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative) or requiring the licensee to modify the facility to
achieve compliance with Appendix R. Denial of the application would
result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's 1973
``Final Environmental Statement Related to the Continuation of
Construction of Unit 2 and the Operation of Units 1 and 2, Millstone
Nuclear Power Station.''
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On May 14, 2012, the NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut State
official, Michael Firsick of the Department of Environmental
Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
Mr. Firsick had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff 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 application dated June 30, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated February 29, 2012. The licensee's application and supplemental
submission are accessible electronically under ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML11188A213 and ML12069A016. Publicly available versions of the
documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through the ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Kim,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-16406 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P