[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27097-27099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11038]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0102; Docket No. 50-409, License DPR-045]


LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor, Exemption From Certain 
Requirements, Vernon County, WI

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

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

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 T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
telephone: 301-415-3017; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
staff is considering a request dated December 1, 2010, by Dairyland 
Power Cooperative, (DPC, the licensee) requesting exemptions from 
certain security requirements in Title 10 of the Code Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 73.55, for the LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor 
(LACBWR).
    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 73 security requirements because LACBWR is 
permanently shut-down and defueled. The part of this proposed action 
involving safeguards plans meets the categorical exclusion provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(F), because it is an exemption from the 
Commission's regulations and (i) there is no significant hazards 
consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or 
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be 
released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual 
or cumulative

[[Page 27098]]

public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant 
construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the 
potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the 
requirements from which an exemption is sought involve safeguard plans 
(which include physical protection plans). Therefore, this part of the 
action does not require either an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement. This environmental assessment was 
prepared for the part of the proposed action that does not involve 
safeguards plans (i.e., the exemption from the implementation date 
required by 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1)).

Need for Proposed Action

    The NRC revised 10 CFR 73.55 through the issuance of a final rule 
on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). Section 73.55 requires that licensees 
establish and maintain physical protection and security for activities 
involving special nuclear material (SNM). Section 73.55(a)(1) requires 
implementation of the 10 CFR 73.55 requirements by March 31, 2010. The 
revised regulation stated that it was applicable to all Part 50 
licensees. The NRC became aware that many Part 50 licensees with 
facilities in decommissioning status did not recognize the 
applicability of this regulation to their facilities. By letter dated 
August 2, 2010, the NRC discussed the applicability of the revised 10 
CFR 73.55 to all Part 50 licensees, stating that each licensee needs to 
evaluate the applicability of the regulation to its facility and either 
make appropriate changes to its Physical Security Plan (PSP), or 
request an exemption.
    The proposed action is needed because the permanently shut-down and 
defueled status of LACBWR affects the level of security necessary to 
protect against radiological sabotage or diversion and the 
implementation date in 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1) has passed. The shutdown 
status of LACBWR means that there are no longer interconnected 
operating systems which require security to prevent offsite releases or 
protect SNM. Granting the licensee an exemption from the March 31, 
2010, implementation date would allow the licensee to continue to 
follow its existing, NRC-approved PSP.

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 
implementation date will not have any adverse environmental impacts. 
The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action alleviates 
the licensee from complying with security requirements that are not 
necessary for the permanently shut-down and defueled status. In 
addition, there will be no construction or major renovation of any 
buildings or structures, no ground disturbing activities, no alteration 
to land or air quality, or any affect on historic and cultural 
resources associated with an extension of the compliance deadline. 
Therefore, the proposed action does not reduce the protection of the 
stored spent fuel. 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 an extension of the compliance 
deadline. 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 with an extension of the compliance deadline. 
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 August 23, 2011, 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

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 1, 2010, [ADAMS Accession Number 
ML103400106]. 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 Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents.
    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 [email protected]. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 
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 30th day of April 2012.


[[Page 27099]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce Watson,
Acting 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. 2012-11038 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P