[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56603-56604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22491]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50313, 368, 416, 003, 247, 286, 333, 293, 458, 271, and 
382]


Entergy Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station; Indian 
Point Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3; James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear 
Power Plant; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; River Bend Station; Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Plant; and Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 
3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) part 20, section 20.1003 for Renewed Facility Operating 
License No. DPR51; Facility Operating License Nos. NPF6 and NPF29; 
Provisional Operating License No. DPR5; and Facility Operating License 
Nos. DPR26, DPR64, DPR59, DPR35, NPF47, DPR28, and NPF38; issued to 
Entergy Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the 
licensees), for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Grand 
Gulf Nuclear Station; Indian Point Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3; 
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Pilgrim Nuclear Power 
Station; River Bend Station; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant; and 
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located in Pope County, 
Arkansas; Claiborne County, Mississippi; Westchester County, New York; 
Oswego County, New York; Plymouth County, Massachusetts; West Felciana 
Parish, Louisiana; Windham County, Vermont; and Saint Charles Parish, 
Louisiana. (The operating authority of Provisional Operating License 
No. DPR5 for Indian Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, was revoked by 
Commission Order dated June 19, 1980). Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 
51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of 
no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would provide an exemption from the 10 CFR 
20.1003 definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is 
the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the 
committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). The 
proposed exemption would change the definition of TEDE to mean the sum 
of the effective dose equivalent or the deep-dose equivalent (for 
external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for 
internal exposures).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated July 20, 2001, as supplemented by letter dated June 
13, 2002.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed because the current method of 
calculating TEDE, under certain conditions, can significantly 
overestimate the dose received.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that revising the methodology for calculating the dose 
received by individuals will not have any environmental impacts.
    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, 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 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 
nonradiological 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

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the 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

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in: the Final Environmental Statement 
(FES) related to the operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, dated 
February 1973, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (NUREG1437, Supplement 
3), dated April 2001; the FES related to the operation of Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 2, dated June 1977; the FES related to the operation 
of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, dated September 1981; previous reviews 
of Indian Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, or the Final Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement on decommissioning of nuclear 
facilities, dated August 1988; the FES related to the operation of 
Indian Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, dated September 1972; the FES 
related to the operation of Indian Point Nuclear Station, Unit 3, dated 
February 1975; the FES related to the operation of the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, dated March 1973; the FES related to 
the operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, dated May 1972; the 
FES related to the operation of the River Bend Station, dated January 
1985; the FES related to the operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Plant, dated July 1972; and the FES related to the operation of 
the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, dated January 1985.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On August 14, 2002, the staff consulted with the Arkansas State 
official, Bernie Bevill of the Arkansas Department of Health, regarding 
the environmental impact of the proposed action. On August 16, 2002, 
the staff consulted with the Mississippi State official, Silas 
Anderson, of the Mississippi Department of Health, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. On August 13, 2002, the 
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. On August 28, 2002, the 
staff consulted with the Massachusetts State official, James 
Muckerheide of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, regarding 
the environmental impact of the proposed action. On August 13, 2002, 
the staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Nan Calhoun of 
the Louisiana Department of

[[Page 56604]]

Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. On August 15, 2002, the staff consulted with the 
Vermont State official, William Sherman of the Department of Public 
Service, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The 
State officials 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 July 20, 2001, as supplemented by letter dated 
June 13, 2002. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (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 18003974209 or 
3014154737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Gramm,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-22491 Filed 9302; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 759001P