[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46378-46379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18402]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-409; NRC-2013-0168]


La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Exemption Request

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; 
issuance.

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

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: T8-F5, Washington, DC 20555-00001. 
Telephone: 301-415-3017; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a 
request dated June 18, 2012, by Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC, the 
licensee) requesting exemptions from specific emergency planning 
requirements of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) facility and 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
    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 50 emergency planning (EP) requirements 
because LACBWR is permanently shut-down and defueled.

Need for Proposed Action

    On November 23, 2011, the NRC issued a Final Rule modifying or 
adding EP requirements in Section 50.47, Section 50.54, and Appendix E 
of 10 CFR part 50 (76 FR 72560). The EP Final Rule was effective on 
December 23, 2011, with specific implementation dates for each of the 
rule changes, varying from the effective date of the Final Rule through 
December 31, 2015. The EP Final Rule codified certain voluntary 
protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, ``Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,'' and 
generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed 
by NRC Order EA-02-026, ``Order for Interim Safeguards and Security 
Compensatory Measures,'' dated February 25, 2002. In addition, the EP 
Final Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) 
Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing and in taking certain 
protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) 
address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events 
of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent 
emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain 
EP requirements to be more effective and efficient. However, the EP 
Final Rule was only an enhancement to the NRC's regulations and was not 
necessary for adequate protection. On page 72563 of the Federal 
Register notice for the EP Final Rule, the Commission ``determined that 
the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of public 
health and safety and common defense and security.''
    The licensee claims that the proposed action is needed because the 
Final Rule imposed requirements on LACBWR that are not necessary to 
meet the underlying purpose of the regulations in view of the greatly 
reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current 
plant status as permanently shut down and with the spent nuclear fuel 
stored in an ISFSI. The EP program at this facility met the EP 
requirements in 10 CFR part 50 that were in effect before December 23, 
2011, subject to any license amendments or exemptions modifying the EP 
requirements for the licensee. Thus, compliance with the EP 
requirements in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule 
demonstrated reasonable assurance that

[[Page 46379]]

adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency.

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 emergency 
planning requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts. 
The proposed action will involve no construction or major renovation of 
any buildings or structures, no ground disturbing activities, no 
alteration to land or air quality, nor any effect on historic and 
cultural resources. 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 the exemptions. 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. 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 May 15, 2013, 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

    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 Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12171A462).
    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, O1 
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 19th day of July 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
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. 2013-18402 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P