[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6223-6224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[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
Salem.
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
1973.
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
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 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
public.
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]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P