La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Exemption Request, 46378-46379 [2013-18402]

Download as PDF 46378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Organizations and individuals wishing to submit comments on this information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Shagufta Ahmed, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428. The PRA requires OMB to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in the proposed regulation between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. NCUA considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in: • Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use; • Evaluating the accuracy of the NCUA’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This IRPS would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families NCUA has determined that this IRPS will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). Agency Regulatory Goal The Board’s goal is to promulgate clear and understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burden. We request your comments on whether this IRPS is understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on July 25, 2013. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2013–18300 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–409; NRC–2013–0168] La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Exemption Request Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance. AGENCY: 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: T8– F5, Washington, DC 20555–00001. Telephone: 301–415–3017; email: John.Hickman@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a request dated June 18, 2012, by Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC, the licensee) requesting exemptions from specific emergency planning requirements of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) facility and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). 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 exempt LACBWR, a 10 CFR part 50 licensee, PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 from certain 10 CFR part 50 emergency planning (EP) requirements because LACBWR is permanently shut-down and defueled. Need for Proposed Action On November 23, 2011, the NRC issued a Final Rule modifying or adding EP requirements in Section 50.47, Section 50.54, and Appendix E of 10 CFR part 50 (76 FR 72560). The EP Final Rule was effective on December 23, 2011, with specific implementation dates for each of the rule changes, varying from the effective date of the Final Rule through December 31, 2015. The EP Final Rule codified certain voluntary protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005–02, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,’’ and generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed by NRC Order EA–02–026, ‘‘Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,’’ dated February 25, 2002. In addition, the EP Final Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing and in taking certain protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain EP requirements to be more effective and efficient. However, the EP Final Rule was only an enhancement to the NRC’s regulations and was not necessary for adequate protection. On page 72563 of the Federal Register notice for the EP Final Rule, the Commission ‘‘determined that the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of public health and safety and common defense and security.’’ The licensee claims that the proposed action is needed because the Final Rule imposed requirements on LACBWR that are not necessary to meet the underlying purpose of the regulations in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shut down and with the spent nuclear fuel stored in an ISFSI. The EP program at this facility met the EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 that were in effect before December 23, 2011, subject to any license amendments or exemptions modifying the EP requirements for the licensee. Thus, compliance with the EP requirements in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule demonstrated reasonable assurance that E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed action and concludes that exempting the facility from the emergency planning requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts. The proposed action will involve no construction or major renovation of any buildings or structures, no ground disturbing activities, no alteration to land or air quality, nor any effect on historic and cultural resources. 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 offsite, 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, there will be no construction or renovation of buildings or structures, or any ground disturbing activities associated with the exemptions. In addition, the proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Finally, there will be no impact on historic sites. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 exemption request would result in no change in current environmental impacts because there will be no construction or major renovation of any buildings or structures, nor any ground disturbing activities associated. Thus the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 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 16:14 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on May 15, 2013, the NRC staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official of the Radiation Protection Section, Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 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 Documents related to this action, including the application and supporting documentation, are available online in the NRC Library at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12171A462). 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s PDR, O1 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 19th day of July 2013. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46379 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew Persinko, 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. 2013–18402 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–456 and 50–457; NRC– 2013–0169] Exelon Generation Company, LLC, License Renewal Application for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public meetings and opportunity to comment. AGENCY: On May 29, 2013, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for renewal of Facility Operating Licenses (NPF–72 and NPF–77) for an additional 20 years of operation for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2. Braidwood Station is located in Will County, Illinois. The current operating licenses for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, expire on October 17, 2026 and December 18, 2027, respectively. This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather information to prepare an EIS on the proposed license renewal. DATES: The scoping meetings will be held on August 21, 2013. The first session will be from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the second session will be from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Submit comments by September 27, 2013. Comments received after these dates will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–0169. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46378-46379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18402]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-409; NRC-2013-0168]


La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Exemption Request

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; 
issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: T8-F5, Washington, DC 20555-00001. 
Telephone: 301-415-3017; email: John.Hickman@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a 
request dated June 18, 2012, by Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC, the 
licensee) requesting exemptions from specific emergency planning 
requirements of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) facility and 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
    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 exempt LACBWR, a 10 CFR part 50 licensee, 
from certain 10 CFR part 50 emergency planning (EP) requirements 
because LACBWR is permanently shut-down and defueled.

Need for Proposed Action

    On November 23, 2011, the NRC issued a Final Rule modifying or 
adding EP requirements in Section 50.47, Section 50.54, and Appendix E 
of 10 CFR part 50 (76 FR 72560). The EP Final Rule was effective on 
December 23, 2011, with specific implementation dates for each of the 
rule changes, varying from the effective date of the Final Rule through 
December 31, 2015. The EP Final Rule codified certain voluntary 
protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, ``Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,'' and 
generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed 
by NRC Order EA-02-026, ``Order for Interim Safeguards and Security 
Compensatory Measures,'' dated February 25, 2002. In addition, the EP 
Final Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) 
Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing and in taking certain 
protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) 
address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events 
of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent 
emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain 
EP requirements to be more effective and efficient. However, the EP 
Final Rule was only an enhancement to the NRC's regulations and was not 
necessary for adequate protection. On page 72563 of the Federal 
Register notice for the EP Final Rule, the Commission ``determined that 
the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of public 
health and safety and common defense and security.''
    The licensee claims that the proposed action is needed because the 
Final Rule imposed requirements on LACBWR that are not necessary to 
meet the underlying purpose of the regulations in view of the greatly 
reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current 
plant status as permanently shut down and with the spent nuclear fuel 
stored in an ISFSI. The EP program at this facility met the EP 
requirements in 10 CFR part 50 that were in effect before December 23, 
2011, subject to any license amendments or exemptions modifying the EP 
requirements for the licensee. Thus, compliance with the EP 
requirements in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule 
demonstrated reasonable assurance that

[[Page 46379]]

adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and concludes that exempting the facility from the emergency 
planning requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts. 
The proposed action will involve no construction or major renovation of 
any buildings or structures, no ground disturbing activities, no 
alteration to land or air quality, nor any effect on historic and 
cultural resources. 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 offsite, 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, there will be no 
construction or renovation of buildings or structures, or any ground 
disturbing activities associated with the exemptions. In addition, the 
proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and 
has no other environmental impact. Finally, there will be no impact on 
historic sites. 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 exemption request would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts because there will be no construction or major 
renovation of any buildings or structures, nor any ground disturbing 
activities associated. Thus the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and 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 15, 2013, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official of the Radiation 
Protection Section, Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 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

    Documents related to this action, including the application and 
supporting documentation, are available online in the NRC Library at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12171A462).
    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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 
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 19th day of July 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
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. 2013-18402 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P