Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3, 20144-20146 [2013-07703]
Download as PDF
20144
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Notices
practice to threaten, propose, take, or
not take a personnel action because an
appellant exercised the right to appeal,
complain, or grieve an alleged violation
of Subsection (b)(8); testified or
otherwise lawfully assisted another’s
right to appeal, complain, or grieve such
an alleged violation; cooperated with or
disclosed information to the Inspector
General or Special Counsel in
accordance with applicable provisions
of law; or refused to obey an order that
would require a violation of law. See 5
CFR 1209.4. If the personnel action
allegedly taken in reprisal for making a
protected disclosure or engaging in
protected activity is not otherwise
appealable to the Board, you must first
file a whistleblower complaint with the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and
exhaust the procedures of that office,
see 5 U.S.C. 1214(a)(3), before you may
file an IRA appeal with the Board under
5 U.S.C. § 1221.’’
Finally, instructions regarding the
impact of filing a formal EEO complaint
on the Board’s timeliness requirements
are included under the heading, ‘‘Time
Limits for filing IRA, USERRA, and
VEOA Appeals, and following the filing
of a Formal EEO Complaint,’’ as follows:
‘‘Formal EEO Complaints. If you have
previously filed a formal Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint regarding the same matter,
you must file your Board appeal within
30 days after receiving the agency’s
resolution or final decision as to that
complaint, or you may file at any time
after 120 days have elapsed from the
filing of the complaint in the absence of
such an agency resolution or decision.
See 5 CFR1201.154(b).’’
Estimated Reporting Burden
In accordance with the requirements
of the PRA, MSPB is soliciting
comments on the public reporting
burden for this information collection.
The public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
vary from 20 minutes to 4 hours, with
an average of 60 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing the form
and instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering the data necessary,
and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Specifically, MSPB invites comments
on: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of MSPB’s
functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the MSPB’s estimate
of burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN
5 CFR parts
Annual
number of
respondents
Frequency per
response
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
(average)
Total hours
1201, 1208 and 1209 ...........................................................
7,150
1
7,150
1.0
7,150
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2013–07692 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am]
any court proceedings collateral or
ancillary thereto.’’ See also 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(10).
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Henry Breiteneicher, Associate
Executive Secretary, (202) 273–2917.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD
Dated: April 1, 2013.
Henry Breiteneicher,
Associate Executive Secretary.
Sunshine Act Meetings: April 2013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2013–07881 Filed 4–1–13; 4:15 pm]
All meetings are held at
2:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 3;
Thursday, April 4; Wednesday, April
10; Thursday, April 11; Wednesday,
April 17; Thursday, April 18;
Wednesday, April 24; Thursday, April
25.
PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820,
1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC
20570.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to
§ 102.139(a) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the Board or a panel
thereof will consider ‘‘the issuance of a
subpoena, the Board’s participation in a
civil action or proceeding or an
arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or
disposition * * * of particular
representation or unfair labor practice
proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of
the [National Labor Relations] Act, or
TIME AND DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
BILLING CODE 7545–01–P
2, issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc. (the licensee), for operation of
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3
(Indian Point 3), located in Westchester
County, NY.’’
Submit comments by May 3,
2013. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to assure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
DATES:
You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly-available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2013–0063. You
may submit comments by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0063. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
ADDRESSES:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–286; NRC–2013–0063]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact;
request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is reconsidering its
issuance of a revision of an existing
exemption from its regulations, ‘‘Fire
Protection Program for Nuclear Power
Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,
1979,’’ for Fire Areas ETN–4 and PAB–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Notices
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555;
telephone: 301–415–1364; email:
Douglas.Pickett@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–
0063 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and is
publicly-available, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0063.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. The application
for exemption, dated July 24, 2006, is
available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML062140057. The Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact, dated September 24,
2007, is available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML072110018. The NRC
letter approving the exemption, dated
September 28, 2007, is available under
ADAMS Accession No. ML072410254.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–
0063 in the subject line of your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely 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 that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
II. Introduction
The NRC is reconsidering its issuance
of a revision of an existing exemption
from part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Appendix
R, ‘‘Fire Protection Program for Nuclear
Power Facilities Operating Prior to
January 1, 1979,’’ for Fire Areas ETN–
4 and PAB–2, issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit 3 (Indian Point 3),
located in Westchester County, NY.’’
On July 24, 2006, Indian Point 3
submitted an exemption request from
the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, III, G.2 for a 1-hour rating
fire barrier. On September 28, 2007, the
NRC issued the exemption. As required
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
finding of no significant impact
(FONSI). The EA on the impacts of the
exemption and FONSI were published
in the Federal Register (FR) on the same
day the exemption was issued (72 FR
55254). The exemption was then
implemented at Indian Point Unit 3. A
draft EA for public comment was not
issued for this licensing action.
In 2007, Mr. Richard Brodsky, then a
New York State Assemblyman, and
others petitioned the NRC to hold a
public hearing before granting the
exemption. The NRC denied Mr.
Brodsky’s petition. In 2008, these
petitioners filed suit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit,
challenging NRC’s denial of a hearing.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20145
The Court of Appeals denied the
petition for lack of jurisdiction, but
afforded petitioners an opportunity to
refile their claims in U.S. District Court.
In 2011, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted
NRC summary judgment on the refiled
claims, finding no violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the
Atomic Energy Act, or the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the
denial of a hearing on the exemption.
Petitioners then sought review of that
decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
On January 7, 2013, the Second
Circuit reversed and vacated the U.S.
District Court decision with respect to
public participation on the EA and
FONSI issued in support of the
exemptions. The Circuit Court
remanded the case to the District Court
‘‘with instructions for it in turn to
remand to the NRC so that the agency
may: (1) Supplement the administrative
record to explain why allowing public
input into the exemption request was
inappropriate or impracticable, or (2)
take such other action as it may deem
appropriate to resolve this issue.’’ The
Court directed that proceedings were to
be concluded within 120 days of the
Mandate, which was issued on March 1,
2013.
In response to the Mandate of the U.S.
Court of Appeals, the NRC is issuing for
public comment, pursuant to 10 CFR
51.33, this Draft Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact. As necessary, the
underlying action (i.e., approval of the
exemptions) may be modified in light of
public comments.
The NRC notes that, subsequent to its
action approving the requested
exemptions in 2007, and petitioners’
court challenges, the agency amended
10 CFR 51.22, which describes NRC’s
actions categorically excluded from
further environmental review under
NEPA. See 75 FR 20248 (April 19,
2010). That 2010 rulemaking expanded
the scope of an existing categorical
exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to
include approvals of licensee exemption
requests. Thus, under the revised
provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), the
NRC need not prepare any
environmental review for exemptions
from the requirements of Parts 50 and
52 ‘‘with respect to installation or use of
a facility component located within the
restricted area, as defined in [10 CFR
Part 20], or which changes an inspection
or surveillance requirement,’’ provided
there are no significant hazards
considerations, no significant increase
in offsite effluents, and no significant
occupational dose increase.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20146
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Notices
Although NRC approval of
exemptions that meet the criteria of this
section no longer require preparation of
an EA/FONSI, the NRC retains
discretion to prepare an EA and FONSI,
including an opportunity for public
comment, where special circumstances
exist. See 10 CFR 51.22(b), and 51.33.
III. Draft Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the
January 7, 1987, safety evaluation (SE)
to reflect that the installed Hemyc
electrical raceway fire barrier system
(ERFBS) configurations provide either a
30-minute fire resistance rating, or in
one case a 24-minute fire resistance
rating, in lieu of the previously stated 1hour fire resistance rating. The licensee
states that a Hemyc ERFBS fire
resistance rating will provide sufficient
protection for the affected raceways,
with adequate margin, to continue to
meet the intent of the original requests
for exemption and conclusions
presented in the NRC’s January 7, 1987,
SE. The licensee concludes that the
revised fire resistance rating of the
Hemyc ERFBS does not reflect a
reduction in overall fire safety, and
presents no added challenge to the
credited post-fire safe-shutdown
capability which remains materially
unchanged from the configuration
originally described in previous letters
and as credited in the January 7, 1987,
SE.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
July 24, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated April 30, May 23, and
August 16, 2007.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed revision of existing
exemptions from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, is needed in response to
NRC Information Notice 2005–07, dated
April 1, 2005, ADAMS Accession No.
ML050890089. The information notice
provided licensees the details of Hemyc
ERFBS full-scale fire tests conducted by
the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research. The test results concluded
that the Hemyc ERFBS does not provide
the level of protection expected for a 1hour rated fire barrier, as originally
designed. The proposed revision to
existing exemptions would revise the
fire resistance rating of Hemyc ERFBS
configurations.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its SE of the
proposed action and concludes that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
configuration of the fire zones under
review provide reasonable assurance
that a severe fire is not plausible and the
existing fire protection features are
adequate. Based on the presence of
redundant safe-shutdown trains,
minimal fire hazards and combustibles,
automatic cable tray fire suppression
system, manual fire suppression
features, fire barrier protection, existing
Hemyc configuration, and the installed
smoke detection system, the NRC staff
finds that the use of this Hemyc fire
barrier in these zones will not
significantly increase the consequences
from a fire in these fire zones.
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 off site. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released off site. 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 a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological 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 staff concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). 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 Final
Environmental Statement for INDIAN
POINT 3, dated February 1975.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 13, 2007, the NRC staff
consulted with the New York State
official, Alyse Peterson of the New York
State Energy Research and Development
Authority, regarding the environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments.
IV. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated July 24, 2006, April 30,
2007, May 23, 2007, and August 16,
2007, (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML062140057, ML071280504,
ML071280504, ML072400369).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of March 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sean C. Meighan,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I–1,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013–07703 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040–09068; License SUA–1598;
NRC–2008–0391]
Lost Creek ISR, LLC, Lost Creek
Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project,
Sweetwater County, Wyoming
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact for
license amendment; availability.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering an
amendment to Source Materials License
SUA–1598 for continued uranium
production operations and in-situ
recovery (ISR) of uranium at the Lost
Creek Project in Sweetwater County,
Wyoming.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0391 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and are publicly-available,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0391. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20144-20146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07703]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-286; NRC-2013-0063]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Unit 3
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reconsidering
its issuance of a revision of an existing exemption from its
regulations, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities
Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,'' for Fire Areas ETN-4 and PAB-2,
issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (Indian Point 3),
located in Westchester County, NY.''
DATES: Submit comments by May 3, 2013. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly-available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-0063.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0063. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
[[Page 20145]]
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-1364; email:
Douglas.Pickett@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0063 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly-available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0063.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced. The application for exemption, dated July 24, 2006, is
available under ADAMS Accession No. ML062140057. The Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, dated September 24,
2007, is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML072110018. The NRC
letter approving the exemption, dated September 28, 2007, is available
under ADAMS Accession No. ML072410254.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0063 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely 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 that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Introduction
The NRC is reconsidering its issuance of a revision of an existing
exemption from part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Appendix R, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power
Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,'' for Fire Areas ETN-4
and PAB-2, issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
for operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (Indian Point
3), located in Westchester County, NY.''
On July 24, 2006, Indian Point 3 submitted an exemption request
from the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III, G.2 for a 1-
hour rating fire barrier. On September 28, 2007, the NRC issued the
exemption. As required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact
(FONSI). The EA on the impacts of the exemption and FONSI were
published in the Federal Register (FR) on the same day the exemption
was issued (72 FR 55254). The exemption was then implemented at Indian
Point Unit 3. A draft EA for public comment was not issued for this
licensing action.
In 2007, Mr. Richard Brodsky, then a New York State Assemblyman,
and others petitioned the NRC to hold a public hearing before granting
the exemption. The NRC denied Mr. Brodsky's petition. In 2008, these
petitioners filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, challenging NRC's denial of a hearing. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, but afforded petitioners
an opportunity to refile their claims in U.S. District Court. In 2011,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
NRC summary judgment on the refiled claims, finding no violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Atomic Energy Act, or the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the denial of a hearing on the
exemption. Petitioners then sought review of that decision in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On January 7, 2013, the Second Circuit reversed and vacated the
U.S. District Court decision with respect to public participation on
the EA and FONSI issued in support of the exemptions. The Circuit Court
remanded the case to the District Court ``with instructions for it in
turn to remand to the NRC so that the agency may: (1) Supplement the
administrative record to explain why allowing public input into the
exemption request was inappropriate or impracticable, or (2) take such
other action as it may deem appropriate to resolve this issue.'' The
Court directed that proceedings were to be concluded within 120 days of
the Mandate, which was issued on March 1, 2013.
In response to the Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the NRC is
issuing for public comment, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, this Draft
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. As
necessary, the underlying action (i.e., approval of the exemptions) may
be modified in light of public comments.
The NRC notes that, subsequent to its action approving the
requested exemptions in 2007, and petitioners' court challenges, the
agency amended 10 CFR 51.22, which describes NRC's actions
categorically excluded from further environmental review under NEPA.
See 75 FR 20248 (April 19, 2010). That 2010 rulemaking expanded the
scope of an existing categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to
include approvals of licensee exemption requests. Thus, under the
revised provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), the NRC need not prepare any
environmental review for exemptions from the requirements of Parts 50
and 52 ``with respect to installation or use of a facility component
located within the restricted area, as defined in [10 CFR Part 20], or
which changes an inspection or surveillance requirement,'' provided
there are no significant hazards considerations, no significant
increase in offsite effluents, and no significant occupational dose
increase.
[[Page 20146]]
Although NRC approval of exemptions that meet the criteria of this
section no longer require preparation of an EA/FONSI, the NRC retains
discretion to prepare an EA and FONSI, including an opportunity for
public comment, where special circumstances exist. See 10 CFR 51.22(b),
and 51.33.
III. Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the January 7, 1987, safety
evaluation (SE) to reflect that the installed Hemyc electrical raceway
fire barrier system (ERFBS) configurations provide either a 30-minute
fire resistance rating, or in one case a 24-minute fire resistance
rating, in lieu of the previously stated 1-hour fire resistance rating.
The licensee states that a Hemyc ERFBS fire resistance rating will
provide sufficient protection for the affected raceways, with adequate
margin, to continue to meet the intent of the original requests for
exemption and conclusions presented in the NRC's January 7, 1987, SE.
The licensee concludes that the revised fire resistance rating of the
Hemyc ERFBS does not reflect a reduction in overall fire safety, and
presents no added challenge to the credited post-fire safe-shutdown
capability which remains materially unchanged from the configuration
originally described in previous letters and as credited in the January
7, 1987, SE.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated July 24, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April
30, May 23, and August 16, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed revision of existing exemptions from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, is needed in response to NRC Information Notice 2005-07,
dated April 1, 2005, ADAMS Accession No. ML050890089. The information
notice provided licensees the details of Hemyc ERFBS full-scale fire
tests conducted by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The
test results concluded that the Hemyc ERFBS does not provide the level
of protection expected for a 1-hour rated fire barrier, as originally
designed. The proposed revision to existing exemptions would revise the
fire resistance rating of Hemyc ERFBS configurations.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its SE of the proposed action and concludes
that the configuration of the fire zones under review provide
reasonable assurance that a severe fire is not plausible and the
existing fire protection features are adequate. Based on the presence
of redundant safe-shutdown trains, minimal fire hazards and
combustibles, automatic cable tray fire suppression system, manual fire
suppression features, fire barrier protection, existing Hemyc
configuration, and the installed smoke detection system, the NRC staff
finds that the use of this Hemyc fire barrier in these zones will not
significantly increase the consequences from a fire in these fire
zones.
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 off site. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. 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 have a potential to affect 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 staff concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
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 Final Environmental Statement for
INDIAN POINT 3, dated February 1975.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 13, 2007, the NRC
staff consulted with the New York State official, Alyse Peterson of the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
IV. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated July 24, 2006, April 30, 2007, May 23, 2007,
and August 16, 2007, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML062140057, ML071280504,
ML071280504, ML072400369).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of March 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sean C. Meighan,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-07703 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P