[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14206-14207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6473]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-266 And 50-301; NRC-2010-0123


 FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 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 one new requirement of 10 CFR Part 73, 
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Renewed Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point 
Beach, LLC (FPLE, the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), located in Manitowoc County, 
Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an 
environmental assessment. Based on the results of the environmental 
assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt PBNP from the required 
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for one new requirement of 10 
CFR Part 73. Specifically, PBNP would be granted an exemption from 
being in full compliance with a new requirement contained in 10 CFR 
73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. FPLE has proposed an alternate 
full compliance implementation date of May 28, 2010, approximately 2 
months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed action, 
an extension of the schedule for completion of one action required by 
the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not involve any physical changes to 
the reactor, fuel, plant structures,

[[Page 14207]]

support structures, water, or land at the PBNP site.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated February 26, 2010, which was superseded by letter 
dated March 11, 2010.

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 PBNP security 
system due to unforeseen circumstances such as adverse weather, 
material delivery and testing constraints.

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 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, 
in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the Commission 
prepared an environmental assessment and published a finding of no 
significant impact [Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 
13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)].
    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 deadline. 
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 for PBNP, dated 
May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2],'' dated August 2005.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 12, 2010, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official 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 March 11, 2010. Portions of the document 
contain security-related information and, accordingly, are not 
available to the public. Other parts of the document 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 Agencywide 
Document 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 document 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March, 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Justin C. Poole,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6473 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P