Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70707 

temporary item). Master files of an 

electronic information system used to 

track administrative forms. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Michael J. Kurtz, 

Assistant Archivist for Records Services— 

Washington, DC. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29233 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–341; NRC–2010–0357; 

FERMI, Unit 2] 

Detroit Edison Company; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) part 20 Appendix G, Section III.E, 

for Facility Operating License No. NFP– 

43, issued to Detroit Edison Company 

(DECo, the licensee), for operation of 

Fermi, Unit 2 (Fermi-2) located in 

Monroe County, Michigan. 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 grant an 

exemption to extend the time period 

that can elapse during shipments of 

low-level radioactive waste before the 

licensee is required to investigate and 

file a report with the NRC. Specifically, 

the exemption would extend the time 

period for the licensee to receive 

acknowledgment that the low-level 

radioactive waste shipment has been 

received by the intended recipient from 

20 days to 35 days. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application for an 

exemption dated February 5, 2010. The 

licensee has requested an exemption 

from certain control and tracking 

requirements in 10 CFR part 20, 

Appendix G, Section III.E, which 

require the licensee to investigate, and 

file a report with the NRC, if shipments 

of low-level radioactive waste are not 

acknowledged by the intended recipient 

within 20 days after transfer to the 

shipper. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

DECo anticipates the increased use of 

rail as the method to ship radioactive 

waste. The licensee has experience with 

rail shipments from the Fermi-1 

decommissioning project. Those rail 

shipments typically took more than 20 

days to reach their destination in Clive, 

Utah. On April 26, 2010, the NRC 

granted a similar exemption extending 

the time period from 20 days to 35 days 

for radioactive shipments from Fermi-1 

based on historical data submitted in 

support of that exemption request. 

The licensee believes, and the NRC 

staff agrees, that the need to investigate, 

trace, and report to the NRC on the 

shipment of low-level waste packages 

not reaching their destination within 20 

days does not serve the underlying 

purpose of the rule. The Commission 

finds that the underlying purpose of the 

Appendix G timing provision at issue is 

to investigate a late shipment that may 

be lost, misdirected or diverted. 

Furthermore, by extending the elapsed 

time for receipt acknowledgement to 35 

days before requiring investigations and 

reporting, a reasonable upper limit on 

shipment duration (based on historical 

analysis) is still maintained if a 

breakdown of normal tracking systems 

were to occur. Therefore, the NRC staff 

finds that granting an exemption to 

extend the time period from 20 days to 

35 days for mixed-mode or truck/rail or 

rail shipments of low-level radioactive 

waste will not result in an undue hazard 

to life or property. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed action and concludes that the 

proposed action is procedural and 

administrative in nature. The staff has 

concluded that the changes 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 Updated Safety Analysis 

Report. There will be no change to 

radioactive effluents that affect radiation 

exposures to plant workers and 

members of the public. No changes will 

be made to plant buildings or the site 

property. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of radiological impacts 

are expected as a result of the proposed 

changes. 

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 or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens 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 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. The details of the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided in the exemption 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 ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for the Enrico 

Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, 

NUREG–0769, dated August 1981, as 

supplemented with Addendum No. 1 in 

March 1982. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on September 21, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the State official, Mr. 

Ken Yale, of the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources and Environment 

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 February 5, 2010 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

ML100430349). 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

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. 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of November, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mahesh L. Chawla, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III– 

1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29114 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–255; NRC–2010–0356] 

Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

20 issued to Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for 

operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant 

(PNP) located in Van Buren County, 

Michigan. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Section 2.E. of the PNP Renewed 

Facility Operating License. The change 

would remove the name of the former 

operator of the plant in the title of the 

PNP physical security plan and replace 

it with Entergy Nuclear. The change 

would also remove the security plan 

revision number and the date the plan 

was submitted to the NRC. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed license amendment corrects 

the out-of-date title, removes the revision 

number, and removes the submittal date of 

the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) physical 

security plan in section 2.E. of the Renewed 

Facility Operating License. The proposed 

amendment does not involve operation of 

plant structures, systems, or components 

(SSC) in a manner or configuration different 

from those previously recognized or 

evaluated. 

The proposed change in section 2.E. of the 

Renewed Facility Operating License is 

administrative and has no impact on plant 

operation or equipment. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment 

would not involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed license amendment does not 

involve a physical alteration of any SSC or 

change the way any SSC is operated. The 

proposed license amendment does not 

involve operation of any SSC in a manner or 

configuration different from those previously 

recognized or evaluated. 

The proposed change in section 2.E. of the 

Renewed Facility Operating License is 

administrative and has no impact on plant 

operation or equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed Renewed Facility 

Operating License change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed modification of section 2.E. 

of the Renewed Facility Operating License is 

administrative and has no impact on plant 

operation or equipment or on any margins of 

safety. 

Therefore, the proposed TS change does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Addresses: You may submit 

comments by any one of the following 

methods. Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0356 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal Rulemaking Web site 

Regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES