The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, “Specific exemptions,” from the implementation date for certain new requirements of 10 CFR part 73, “PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS,” for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, and DPR-64, issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (IP1, IP2, and IP3), located in Westchester County, NY. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC concluded that the proposed actions will have no significant environmental impact.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt IP1, IP2, and IP3 from the required implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of 10 CFR part 73. Specifically, IP1, IP2, and IP3 would be granted an exemption from being in full compliance with certain new requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. The licensee has proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of February 17, 2011, approximately 11 months beyond the date required by 10 CFR part 73. The proposed action, an extension of the schedule for completion of certain actions required by the revised 10 CFR part 73, does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, support structures, water, or land at the IP1, IP2, and IP3 site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated January 28, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated March 8, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with additional time for design, procurement, and installation activities and in consideration of impediments to construction such as winter weather conditions and equipment delivery schedules.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to extend the implementation deadline would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR part 73 as discussed in a Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There will be no change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. 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 of the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Steven's Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. In addition, in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the Commission prepared an environmental assessment and published a finding of no significant impact (see Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 13926 (March 27, 2009)).
IP1, IP2, and IP3's current security program and the new requirements that will be implemented by March 31, 2010, will provide continued assurance of public health and safety and common defense and security in lieu of the full compliance with all the requirements specified in 10 CFR part 73. Therefore, the extension of the implementation date of some of the new requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to February 17, 2011, would not have any significant environmental impacts.
The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation, if granted.Start Printed Page 14640
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. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee would have to comply with the March 31, 2010, implementation deadline. The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the “no action” alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those considered in (1) The “Indian Point Unit No. 1, Environmental Report and Benefit Cost Analysis,” June 1973; (2) The “Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Indian Point Generating Plant Unit No. 2,” dated September 1972, and (3) the “Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Indian Point Generating Plant Unit No. 3,” dated February 1975.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 4, 2010, 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.
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 letter dated January 28, 2010. Portions of the submittal dated January 28, 2010, contain security-related information and, accordingly, are withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1). The licensee's supplemental letter dated March 8, 2010, is withheld in its entirety as security-related information in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1). A publicly available version of the letter dated January 28, 2010, is accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) with Accession No. ML100340142. The publicly available version of the document may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to email@example.com.Start Signature
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of March 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6726 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P