[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Pages 6223-6224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2656]



[Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311 and 50-354; NRC-2010-0043]

PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

    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 requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility Operating 
License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC 
(PSEG, the licensee), for operation of the Hope Creek Generating 
Station (HCGS) and the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (Salem), located in Salem County, New Jersey. 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.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt HCGS and Salem from the required 
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of 
10 CFR part 73. Specifically, HCGS and Salem 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. PSEG has 
proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of December 
17, 2010, approximately 8\1/2\ 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 site for HCGS and 
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated November 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated 
November 20, and December 22, 2009.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with 
additional time to perform the required upgrades to the combined HCGS-
Salem security system due to the significant number of engineering 
design packages, procurement needs, and installation activities.

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 13967). There will be no 
change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to 
plant workers and members of the

[[Page 6224]]

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, 
as discussed above, in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, 
the Commission prepared an environmental assessment and published a 
finding of no significant impact (74 FR 13967).
    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.

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 date. 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 the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the 
HCGS, NUREG-1074, dated December 1984, or the FES for Salem dated April 

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 4, 2010, the NRC 
staff consulted with the New Jersey State officials, Mr. Jerry 
Humphreys (for HCGS) and Mr. Elliot Rosenfeld (for Salem) of the New 
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials had no 

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 
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated November 3, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093100222), as 
supplemented by letter dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML093640062). These documents 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. Note, the above letters contain enclosures with redacted 
versions of safeguards information that is not available to the public. 
Another letter from the licensee dated November 20, 2009, also contains 
safeguards information and, accordingly, is not available to the 
    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 protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-2656 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]