77010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 

STATUS: Closed. 

LOCATION: The closed session of this 

teleconference will be held at the 

National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 

UPDATES & POINT OF CONTACT: Please 

refer to the National Science Board Web 

site http://www.nsf.gov/nsb for 

additional information and schedule 

updates (time, place, subject matter or 

status of meeting) may be found at 

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point 

of contact for this meeting is: Jennie 

Moehlmann, National Science Board 

Office, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 

22230. Telephone: (703) 292–7000. 

Daniel A. Lauretano, 

Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31157 Filed 12–8–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Regular Board of Directors Meeting; 

Sunshine Act 

TIME AND DATE 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, 

December 15, 2010. 

PLACE: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, 

Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005. 

STATUS: Open. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 

Secretary, (202) 220–2376; 

ehall@nw.org. 

AGENDA: 

I. Call to order 

II. Approval of the Minutes 

III. Summary Report of the Corporate 

Administration Committee 

IV. Summary Report of the Finance, 

Budget and Program Committee 

V. Summary Report of the Corporate 

Administration Committee 

VI. Summary Report of the Audit 

Committee 

VII. Approval of the Minutes 

VIII. Approval of the Minutes 

IX. Approval of the Minutes 

X. Approval of the Revised Minutes 

XI. Board Policy Regarding Elected 

Officials 

XII. Financial Report 

XIII. Corporate Scorecard 

XIV. Chief Executive Officer’s 

Management Report 

XV. Strategic Planning Discussion 

XVI. CEO Search Update 

XVII. CAC Report on Interim Salary 

Adjustments 

XVIII. Adjournment 

Erica Hall, 

Assistant Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31009 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301; NRC– 

2010–0380] 

Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC; 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Draft Environmental Assessment 

and Draft Finding of No Significant 

Impact Related to the Proposed 

License Amendment To Increase the 

Maximum Reactor Power Level 

In accordance with Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Section 51.21, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has 

prepared a draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and draft Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) as part of 

its evaluation of a request by Florida 

Power & Light (FPL) Energy (the 

licensee) (now NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC (NextEra)) for a license 

amendment to increase the maximum 

thermal power at the Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2 

from 1,540 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 

1,800 MWt for each unit. This 

represents a power increase of 

approximately 17 percent over the 

current licensed thermal power, with a 

net increase of electrical output from 

519 megawatts-electric (MWe) to 607 

MWe for each unit, and approximately 

an 18 percent increase from the original 

licensed power level of 1,518 MWt. In 

2003, PBNP received approval from the 

NRC to increase their power by 1.4 

percent, to the current power level of 

1,540 MWt. The NRC staff did not 

identify any significant environmental 

impact associated with the proposed 

action based on its evaluation of the 

information provided in the licensee’s 

extended power uprate (EPU) 

application and other available 

information. The draft EA and draft 

FONSI are being published in the 

Federal Register with a 30-day public 

comment period ending January 8, 2011. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

Plant Site and Environs 

The PBNP site is located 

approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) 

east-northeast of the town of Mischot on 

the western shore of Lake Michigan, 

midway along the western shore, near 

the northeastern corner of Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. The City of Green 

Bay is located approximately 25 miles 

(40 kilometers) northwest of PBNP, and 

the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant is located 

approximately 4 miles (6 kilometers) 

north of PBNP on the shore of Lake 

Michigan. The PBNP site is comprised 

of approximately 1,260 acres (510 

hectares), with 104 acres (42 hectares) 

that includes the two nuclear reactors, 

parking and ancillary facilities. 

Approximately 1,050 acres (425 

hectares) are used for agriculture, and 

the remaining land is a mixture of 

woods, wetlands, and open areas. Each 

of the two units at PBNP use 

Westinghouse pressurized water 

reactors. 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

By application dated April 7, 2009, 

the licensee requested an amendment 

for an EPU for PBNP to increase the 

licensed thermal power level from 1,540 

MWt to 1,800 MWt for each unit, which 

represents an increase of approximately 

17 percent above the current licensed 

thermal power and approximately 18 

percent over the original licensed 

thermal power level. This change in 

core thermal level requires the NRC to 

amend the facility’s operating license. 

The operational goal of the proposed 

EPU is a corresponding increase in 

electrical output for each unit from 519 

MWe to 607 MWe. The proposed action 

is considered an EPU by NRC because 

it exceeds the typical 7 percent power 

increase that can be accommodated with 

only minor plant changes. EPUs 

typically involve extensive 

modifications to the nuclear steam 

supply system. 

The licensee plans to make extensive 

physical modifications to the plant’s 

secondary side to implement the 

proposed EPU over the course of two 

refueling outages currently scheduled 

for the Spring 2011 and the Fall 2011. 

The actual power uprate, if approved by 

the NRC, would occur in two stages 

following the 2011 refueling outages. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The need for the additional power 

generation is based upon the goals and 

recommendations of Wisconsin’s 2007 

Final Report on ‘‘Strategic Energy 

Assessment Energy 2012’’ for 

maintaining a robust energy planning 

reserve margin of 18 percent. In this 

report, the State of Wisconsin, Public 

Service Commission, forecasted an 

annual growth rate of over 2 percent in 

demand for electricity. The proposed 

action provides the licensee with the 

flexibility to increase the potential 

electrical output of PBNP Units 1 and 2 

from its existing power station, and to 

reduce Wisconsin’s dependence on 

obtaining power from Illinois via a 

congested transmission grid connection. 

The additional 90 MWe provided by 

each unit would contribute to meeting 

the goals of the State of Wisconsin to 

provide efficient and stable nuclear 

electrical generation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77011 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

As part of the licensing process for 

PBNP Units 1 & 2, the NRC published 

a Final Environmental Statement (FES) 

in October 1970, for PBNP Unit 1, and 

in March 1973 for PBNP Unit 2. The two 

FESs provide an evaluation of the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the operation of PBNP Units 1 & 2 over 

their licensed lifetimes. In addition, in 

2005, the NRC evaluated the 

environmental impacts of operating 

PBNP for an additional 20 years beyond 

its current operating license, and 

determined that the environmental 

impacts of license renewal were small. 

The NRC staff’s evaluation is contained 

in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, 

Supplement 23, Regarding Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2’’ (SEIS–23) 

issued in August 2005 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML052230490). The NRC staff used 

information from the licensee’s license 

amendment request, the FESs, and the 

SEIS–23 to perform its EA for the 

proposed EPU. 

There will be extensive changes made 

to the secondary side of the PBNP 

related to the EPU action, but no new 

construction is planned outside of 

existing facilities, and no extensive 

changes are anticipated to buildings or 

plant systems that directly or indirectly 

interface with the environment. All 

necessary modifications would be 

performed in existing buildings at 

PBNP. Modifications to the secondary 

side of each unit include the following: 

Replacing the high-pressure side of the 

turbine; replacing all of the feedwater 

heaters, feedwater and condensate 

pumps and motors to operate at higher 

capacity; providing supplemental 

cooling for some plant systems; 

implementing electrical upgrades; other 

modifications to accommodate greater 

steam and condensate flow rates; and 

changing setpoints and modifying 

software. 

The sections below describe the nonradiological and radiological impacts in 

the environment that may result from 

the proposed EPU. 

Non-Radiological Impacts 

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts 

Potential land use and aesthetic 

impacts from the proposed EPU include 

impacts from plant modifications at 

PBNP. While some plant components 

would be modified, most plant changes 

related to the proposed EPU would 

occur within existing structures, 

buildings, and fenced equipment yards 

housing major components within the 

developed part of the site. No new 

construction would occur outside of 

existing facilities and no expansion of 

buildings, roads, parking lots, 

equipment lay-down areas, or 

transmission facilities would be 

required to directly support the 

proposed EPU. 

Existing parking lots, road access, 

equipment lay-down areas, offices, 

workshops, warehouses, and restrooms 

would be used during plant 

modifications. Therefore, land use 

conditions would not change at PBNP. 

Also, there would be no land use 

changes along transmission lines (no 

new lines would be required for the 

proposed EPU), transmission corridors, 

in switch yards, or in substations. 

Since land use conditions would not 

change at PBNP, there would be no 

significant impact from EPU-related 

plant modifications on land use and 

aesthetic resources in the vicinity of 

PBNP. 

Air Quality Impacts 

Air quality within the Point Beach 

area is generally considered good, with 

an exception occurring for a designated 

ozone nonattainment area. PBNP is 

located in Manitowoc County within the 

Lake Michigan Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR). With the 

exception of the 8-hour standard for 

ozone, the Lake Michigan AQCR is 

designated as being in attainment or 

unclassifiable for all air-quality criteria 

pollutants in the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s 40 CFR 81.350. 

There are approximately 650 people 

employed at the PBNP on a full-time 

basis, and 150 long and short-term 

contractors. This workforce is typically 

augmented by an additional 700 persons 

during regularly scheduled refueling 

outages. For the EPU work conducted 

during the Spring 2011 outage and the 

Fall 2011 outage, there will be 

approximately 1,200 more workers 

supplementing the typical 700 

additional workers scheduled for 

refueling outages. The workforce 

numbers would be somewhat larger 

than for a routine outage and would take 

longer to complete, but would still be of 

a relatively short duration 

(approximately 68 days). A typical 

refueling outage typically requires 35 

days to complete. During 

implementation of the EPU at PBNP, 

some minor and short duration air 

quality impacts would occur. The main 

source of the air emissions would be 

from the vehicles of the additional 

outage workers needed for the EPU 

work. An approximate 727 additional 

truck deliveries will be needed to 

support EPU modifications for the 

Spring 2011 outage, and approximately 

774 additional truck deliveries will 

support the EPU modifications for the 

Fall 2011 EPU modifications. 

The majority of the EPU work would 

be performed inside existing buildings 

and would not impact air quality. 

Operation of the reactor at the increased 

power level would not result in 

increased non-radioactive emissions 

that would have a significant impact on 

air quality in the region. Therefore, 

there would be no significant impact on 

air quality during and following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

Water Use Impacts 

Groundwater 

The PBNP is not connected to a 

municipal water system, and utilizes 

groundwater from the Silurian aquifer 

for potable and sanitary purposes 

withdrawn from five wells located 

within the plant yard. PBNP has 

approval from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

through the State’s water appropriation 

permit program for groundwater 

withdrawal from wells with a combined 

withdrawal for over 10,000 gallons per 

day (gpd). Groundwater withdrawals 

from these five wells at PBNP have 

historically averaged about 6.5 gallons 

per minute (gpm) (9,300 gpd). While 

potable water in the vicinity of PBNP is 

drawn primarily from Lake Michigan, 

groundwater does provide potable water 

for smaller towns and rural residences 

in the plant region. 

Groundwater samples taken from 

PBNP’s supply wells as part of the 

PBNP site environmental monitoring 

program have shown no contamination. 

There are no discharges to groundwater 

from PBNP requiring permits by 

regulatory agencies, and discharge of 

wastewater to onsite retention ponds 

ended in 2002. 

The EPU is not projected to increase 

groundwater use or liquid effluent 

discharges by PBNP during the 

operating life of the plant. As a result, 

local and regional groundwater users 

would not be affected by the proposed 

EPU. While potable water use would be 

expected to increase over the short term 

in association with the influx of the 

1,200 additional workers supporting 

EPU implementation activities, this 

potential increase would be within the 

capacity of PBNP’s wells and would be 

unlikely to have any effect on other 

groundwater users. Therefore, there 

would be no significant impact on 

groundwater resources following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

77012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 

Surface Water 

The PBNP uses surface water from 

Lake Michigan for its once-through 

cooling system for both units for its 

plant condenser cooling, auxiliary water 

systems, the service water system, and 

for fire protection. The cooling system 

removes waste heat from the condensers 

and other plant equipment, and 

discharges the water through separate 

flumes for each unit back into Lake 

Michigan. As described in the licensee’s 

application and SEIS–23, cooling water 

is circulated through PBNP at 680,000 

gpm, and will remain unchanged under 

EPU conditions. Thus, no change in 

PBNP’s water use or on the availability 

of water for other Lake Michigan users 

is expected. 

Main condenser cooling water is 

withdrawn from Lake Michigan at a 

depth of approximately 22 feet (7 

meters) from an offshore intake located 

approximately 1,750 feet (533 meters) 

east of the shoreline. The plant has two 

discharges located about 200 feet (60 

meters) from the shoreline. Nonradioactive chemical effluent discharges 

into Lake Michigan are regulated in 

accordance with a Wisconsin Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) 

permit (WI–0000957–07). The applicant 

submitted an application for renewal to 

the State in December 2008. The current 

WPDES permit is valid until the new 

WPDES permit is issued. The licensee’s 

evaluation stated that no significant 

changes in WPDES permit-regulated 

discharges to outfalls are expected from 

EPU-operations. Therefore, there would 

be no significant impact on surface 

water resources following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

Aquatic Resources Impacts 

The potential impacts to aquatic biota 

from the proposed action could include 

impingement, entrainment, and 

chemical and thermal discharge effects. 

A permanent acoustic fish-deterrent 

system was installed around the intake 

structures at PBNP in 2002, to help 

reduce the influx of fish into the intake 

structure and to reduce potential 

impingement. The intake structures 

were originally constructed in areas of 

the lake devoid of fish spawning habitat 

or nursery grounds, which reduces the 

rate of entrainment. The proposed EPU 

will not result in an increase in water 

being withdrawn from Lake Michigan, 

nor will it result in an increase in the 

amount of water discharged to Lake 

Michigan. Therefore, there would be no 

potential increase in aquatic impacts 

from entrainment and impingement as a 

result of the proposed licensing action. 

The potential impacts at PBNP would 

remain consistent with the NRC’s 

conclusion in the SEIS–23, that the 

aquatic impacts as a result of PBNP 

operation during the term of license 

renewal would continue to be small. 

However, the proposed EPU will 

result in an approximate 17 percent 

increase in the amount of waste heat 

discharged into Lake Michigan. 

According to a modeling study 

performed by the licensee in 2008, the 

temperature of the discharge water is 

expected to increase by a maximum of 

3.6 °F (2.0 °C) as a result of the proposed 

EPU. While the cooling water thermal 

plume of PBNP is expected to be 

somewhat larger as a result of the 

proposed EPU, it is not expected to 

disrupt the balanced indigenous 

community of aquatic resources, and 

will have a negligible impact on 

Representative Important Species of 

Lake Michigan. The current WPDES 

permit for PBNP does not contain 

thermal effluent limitations. In addition, 

the NRC staff concluded in the SEIS–23 

that PBNP was in compliance with its 

current WPDES permit, and was using 

the best available technology for the 

minimization of adverse environmental 

impacts from entrainment, 

impingement, and heat shock, and 

further mitigation measures would not 

be warranted. 

The circulating water system and 

service water system for PBNP are 

treated with biocides, sodium 

hypochlorite, and an electrolytic system 

adding copper to control biofouling 

from zebra mussels (Dreissena 

polymorpha) and to control algal 

growth. The NRC staff concluded in the 

SEIS–23 that there are no significant 

impacts of discharge of chlorine or other 

biocides during the license renewal 

term. The chemicals used for the above 

treatments at PBNP are regulated 

through the PBNP WPDES permit. The 

licensee has noted that they will 

maintain compliance with the WPDES 

permit and all other licenses, permits, 

approvals or other requirements 

currently held by the plant as a function 

of the proposed EPU. 

The State of Wisconsin Coastal 

Management Program (WCMP) informed 

the licensee on March 16, 2010, that the 

WCMP has no comments on the project 

and will not conduct a Federal 

consistency review for PBNP as part of 

their WPDES permit. Therefore, there 

would be no significant adverse impacts 

to the aquatic biota from entrainment, 

impingement, thermal discharges, or 

from biocides for the proposed action. 

Terrestrial Resources Impacts 

As discussed in the Plant Site and 

Environs section, the PBNP site consists 

of approximately 1,260 acres, with over 

2 miles (3 kilometers) of shoreline on 

Lake Michigan. Approximately 104 

acres are used for power generation and 

support facilities. Much of the 

remaining area (1,050 acres) is farmed, 

and approximately 100 acres consists 

largely of woods, wetlands, and open 

areas. As previously discussed in the 

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, 

the proposed action would not affect 

land use at PBNP. Therefore, there 

would be no significant impacts on 

terrestrial biota associated with the 

proposed action. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Impacts 

Correspondence between the licensee 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) in connection with the PBNP 

license renewal environmental review 

indicated that no Federally-listed 

endangered, threatened, or candidate 

terrestrial or aquatic species are likely to 

occur in the vicinity of the PBNP site. 

However, two species that are Federallylisted, the endangered piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) and the 

threatened dune or Pitcher’s thistle 

(Cirsium pitchen) have been recorded in 

Manitowoc County. In addition, the 

dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris) has been 

documented in Brown County, which is 

traversed by the PBNP transmission 

line. The USFWS determined that 

portions of the PBNP shoreline may be 

suitable nesting habitat for the piping 

plover. And there is critical breeding 

habitat designated for the piping plover 

at Point Beach State Forest, which is 

approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) 

southeast of PBNP, although no piping 

plovers have been recorded as breeding 

at this location. The bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (now 

delisted, but still protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) 

has not been observed foraging on or 

near the plant area, but bald eagles have 

been observed foraging on smaller, 

interior water bodies that may be found 

near the transmission lines. Regardless, 

the planned construction-related 

activities related to the proposed EPU 

primarily involve changes to existing 

structures, systems, and components 

internal to existing buildings within the 

plant, and would not involve earth 

disturbance. While traffic and worker 

activity in the developed parts of the 

plant site during the Spring 2011 and 

Fall 2011 refueling outages would be 

somewhat greater than a normal 

refueling outage, the potential impact on 

terrestrial wildlife would be minor and 

temporary. 

Since there are no planned changes to 

the terrestrial wildlife habitat on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77013 

PBNP site from the proposed EPU, and 

the potential impacts from worker 

activity would be minor and temporary, 

there would be no significant impacts to 

any threatened or endangered species 

for the proposed action. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Impacts 

Records at the Wisconsin Historical 

Society identify several historic and 

archaeological sites in the vicinity of 

PBNP and three sites on PBNP property. 

None of these sites have been 

determined eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). There are a number of historic 

properties in Manitowoc County listed 

on the NRHP and the nearest, the 

Rawley Point Light Station, is within 6 

miles (10 kilometers) of PBNP. 

As previously discussed, all EPUrelated plant modifications would take 

place within existing buildings and 

facilities at PBNP, including replacing 

two electrical transformers on an 

existing pad. Since no ground 

disturbance or construction-related 

activities would occur outside of 

previously disturbed areas and existing 

electrical transmission facilities, there 

would be no significant impact from 

EPU-related plant modifications on 

historic sites and to archaeological 

resources located on and within the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Potential socioeconomic impacts from 

the proposed EPU include temporary 

increases in the size of the workforce at 

the PBNP and associated increased 

demand for public services, housing, 

and increased traffic in the region. The 

proposed EPU could also increase tax 

payments due to increased power 

generation. 

Currently, there are approximately 

800 workers employed at the PBNP, 

residing primarily in Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. During regularly 

scheduled refueling outages the number 

of workers at PBNP increases by as 

many as 700 workers for 35 days. 

The proposed EPU is expected to 

temporarily increase the size of the 

refueling outage workforce by 

approximately 1,200 additional workers. 

The refueling outage would last 

approximately 68 days during two 

refueling outages (one for each unit). 

The majority of the EPU-related 

modifications would take place during 

the Spring 2011 and Fall 2011 refueling 

outages. Once completed, the size of the 

refueling outage workforce at the PBNP 

would return to approximately 700 

workers, with no significant increases 

during future refueling outages. After 

EPU-related plant modifications, the 

number of plant operations workers 

would return to approximately 800 

workers. 

Most of the EPU-related plant 

modification workers would relocate 

temporarily to Manitowoc County, 

resulting in short-term increases in the 

local population along with increased 

demands for public services and 

housing. Because plant modification 

work would be short-term, most workers 

would stay in available rental homes, 

apartments, mobile homes, and campertrailers. According to the 3-year average 

estimate (2006–2008) for census housing 

data, there were nearly 3,200 vacant 

housing units in Manitowoc County that 

could potentially ease the demand for 

local rental housing. Therefore, a 

temporary increase in plant 

employment for a short duration would 

have little or no noticeable effect on the 

availability of housing in the region. 

The additional number of refueling 

outage workers and truck material and 

equipment deliveries needed to support 

EPU-related plant modifications would 

cause short-term level of service impacts 

on access roads in the immediate 

vicinity of PBNP. Due to the short 

duration of the outages, increased traffic 

volumes during normal refueling 

outages typically have not degraded the 

level of service capacity on local roads. 

However, an additional 727 truck 

deliveries are anticipated to support 

implementation of the EPU 

modifications during the Spring 2011 

outage, and an additional 774 deliveries 

are anticipated to support the Fall 2011 

outage. Based on this information and 

given that EPU-related plant 

modifications would occur during a 

normal refueling outage, there could be 

noticeable short term (during certain 

hours of the day) level-of-service traffic 

impacts beyond what is experienced 

during normal outages. During periods 

of high traffic volume (i.e., morning and 

afternoon shift changes), work 

schedules could be staggered and 

employees and/or local police officials 

could be used to direct traffic entering 

and leaving PBNP to minimize level of 

service impacts on State Route 42. 

NextEra pays a lump sum ‘‘gross 

revenue’’ tax to the State of Wisconsin 

in lieu of property taxes. Portions of this 

tax are based on the ‘‘net book value’’ of 

the PBNP and the amount of megawatts 

generated. The annual amount of taxes 

paid by NextEra would increase due to 

increased power generation. Future tax 

payments would also take into account 

the increased net book value of the 

PBNP as a result of the EPU 

implementation and ‘‘incentive 

payments,’’ should megawatt production 

exceed negotiated annual benchmarks 

as power generation increases. 

The proposed EPU would also 

increase local tax revenues generated by 

sales taxes and State and Federal 

income taxes paid by temporary workers 

residing in Manitowoc County. 

However, due to the short duration of 

EPU-related plant modification 

activities, there would be little or no 

noticeable effect on tax revenue streams 

in Manitowoc County. Therefore, there 

would be no significant adverse 

socioeconomic impacts from EPUrelated plant modifications and 

operations under EPU conditions in the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Environmental Justice Impacts 

The environmental justice impact 

analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations that could result from 

activities associated with the proposed 

EPU at the PBNP. Such effects may 

include human health, biological, 

cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Minority and low-income populations 

are subsets of the general public 

residing in the vicinity of the PBNP, and 

all are exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from 

activities at the PBNP. 

The NRC staff considered the 

demographic composition of the area 

within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of the 

PBNP to determine the location of 

minority and low-income populations 

and whether they may be affected by the 

proposed action. 

Minority populations in the vicinity 

of PBNP, according to the U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2000, comprise 7.6 

percent of the population 

(approximately 722,000 individuals) 

residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) 

radius of PBNP. The largest minority 

group was Hispanic or Latino 

(approximately 19,000 persons or 2.7 

percent), followed by Asian 

(approximately 17,000 persons or about 

2.4 percent). According to the U.S. 

Census Bureau, about 5.0 percent of the 

Manitowoc County population 

identified themselves as minorities, 

with persons of Asian origin comprising 

the largest minority group (2.0 percent). 

According to census data, the 3-year 

average estimate for 2006–2008 for the 

minority population of Manitowoc 

County, as a percent of total population, 

increased to 6.4 percent, with persons of 

Hispanic or Latino origin comprising 

the largest minority group (2.5 percent). 

Low-income populations in the 

vicinity of PBNP, according to 2000 

census data, comprise approximately 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

77014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 

7,300 families and 40,900 individuals 

(approximately 3.8 and 5.7 percent, 

respectively) residing within a 50-mile 

(80-kilometer) radius of the PBNP. 

These individuals and families were 

identified as living below the Federal 

poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 

Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 

for a family of four. 

According to census data in the 

2006–2008 American Community 

Survey 

3-Year Estimates, the median household 

income for Wisconsin was $52,249, with 

10.7 percent of the State population and 

7.0 percent of families determined to be 

living below the Federal poverty 

threshold. Manitowoc County had a 

lower median household income 

average ($49,867) than the State of 

Wisconsin, but had lower percentages of 

county individuals (7.9 percent) and 

families (4.8 percent), respectively, 

living below the poverty level. 

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to minority and 

low-income populations would mostly 

consist of environmental and 

socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, 

traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). Radiation doses from plant 

operations after the EPU are expected to 

continue to remain well below 

regulatory limits. 

Noise and dust impacts would be 

short-term and limited to onsite 

activities. Minority and low-income 

populations residing along site access 

roads could experience increased 

commuter vehicle traffic during shift 

changes. Increased demand for rental 

housing during the refueling outages 

that would include EPU-related plant 

modifications could disproportionately 

affect low-income populations. 

However, due to the short duration of 

the EPU-related work and the 

availability of rental housing, impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

would be short-term and limited. 

According to census information, there 

were approximately 3,200 vacant 

housing units in Manitowoc County. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

environmental assessment, the proposed 

EPU would not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations residing in the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Non-Radiological Impacts Summary 

As discussed above, the proposed 

EPU would not result in any significant 

non-radiological impacts. Table 1 

summarizes the non-radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

EPU at PBNP. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Land Use ............................................................ No significant impact on land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the 

PBNP. 

Air Quality ........................................................... Temporary short-term air quality impacts from vehicle emissions related to the workforce. No 

significant impacts to air quality. 

Water Use ........................................................... Water use changes resulting from the EPU would be relatively minor. No significant impact on 

groundwater or surface water resources. 

Aquatic Resources .............................................. No significant impact to aquatic resources due to impingement, entrainment, and chemical or 

thermal discharges. 

Terrestrial Resources ......................................... No significant impact to terrestrial resources. 

Threatened and Endangered Species ................ No significant impact to federally-listed species. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources .............. No significant impact to historic and archaeological resources on site or in the vicinity of the 

PBNP. 

Socioeconomics .................................................. No significant socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related temporary increase in workforce. 

Environmental Justice ......................................... No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations in the vicinity of the PBNP. 

Radiological Impacts 

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid 

Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and 

Solid Waste 

PBNP uses waste treatment systems to 

collect, process, recycle, and dispose of 

gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that 

contain radioactive material in a safe 

and controlled manner within NRC and 

EPA radiation safety standards. The 

licensee’s evaluation of plant operation 

at the proposed EPU conditions shows 

that no physical changes would be 

needed to the radioactive gaseous, 

liquid, or solid waste systems. 

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents 

The gaseous waste management 

systems include the radioactive gaseous 

system, which manages radioactive 

gases generated during the nuclear 

fission process. Radioactive gaseous 

wastes are principally activation gases 

and fission product radioactive noble 

gases resulting from process operations, 

including continuous degasification of 

systems, gases collected during system 

venting, and gases generated in the 

radiochemistry laboratory. The 

licensee’s evaluation determined that 

implementation of the proposed EPU 

would not significantly increase the 

inventory of carrier gases normally 

processed in the gaseous waste 

management system, since plant system 

functions are not changing and the 

volume inputs remain the same. The 

analysis also showed that the proposed 

EPU would result in an increase 

(approximately 17.6 percent for noble 

gases, particulates, radioiodines, and 

tritium) in the equilibrium radioactivity 

in the reactor coolant, which in turn 

increases the radioactivity in the waste 

disposal systems and radioactive gases 

released from the plant. 

The licensee’s evaluation concluded 

that the proposed EPU would not 

change the radioactive gaseous waste 

system’s design function and reliability 

to safely control and process the waste. 

The existing equipment and plant 

procedures that control radioactive 

releases to the environment will 

continue to be used to maintain 

radioactive gaseous releases within the 

dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the 

as low as is reasonably achievable 

(ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I 

to 10 CFR Part 50. 

Radioactive Liquid Effluents 

The liquid waste management system 

collects, processes, and prepares 

radioactive liquid waste for disposal. 

Radioactive liquid wastes include 

liquids from various equipment drains, 

floor drains, the chemical and volume 

control system, steam generator 

blowdown, chemistry laboratory drains, 

laundry drains, decontamination area 

drains and liquids used to transfer solid 

radioactive waste. The licensee’s 

evaluation shows that the proposed EPU 

implementation would not significantly 

increase the inventory of liquid 

normally processed by the liquid waste 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77015 

management system. This is because the 

system functions are not changing and 

the volume inputs remain the same. The 

proposed EPU would result in an 

increase (approximately 17.6 percent) in 

the equilibrium radioactivity in the 

reactor coolant which in turn would 

impact the concentrations of radioactive 

nuclides in the waste disposal systems. 

Since the composition of the 

radioactive material in the waste and 

the volume of radioactive material 

processed through the system are not 

expected to significantly change, the 

current design and operation of the 

radioactive liquid waste system will 

accommodate the effects of the 

proposed EPU. The existing equipment 

and plant procedures that control 

radioactive releases to the environment 

will continue to be used to maintain 

radioactive liquid releases within the 

dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and 

ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to 

10 CFR Part 50. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU 

Conditions 

The licensee stated that the in-plant 

radiation sources are expected to 

increase approximately linearly with the 

proposed increase in core power level. 

To protect the workers, the plant’s 

radiation protection program monitors 

radiation levels throughout the plant to 

establish appropriate work controls, 

training, temporary shielding, and 

protective equipment requirements so 

that worker doses will remain within 

the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 

ALARA. 

In addition to the work controls 

implemented by the radiation protection 

program, permanent and temporary 

shielding is used throughout the PBNP 

to protect plant personnel against 

radiation from the reactor and auxiliary 

systems containing radioactive material. 

The licensee determined that the 

current shielding design, which uses 

conservative analytical techniques to 

establish the shielding requirements, is 

adequate to offset the increased 

radiation levels that are expected to 

occur from the proposed EPU. The 

proposed EPU is not expected to 

significantly affect radiation levels 

within the plant and therefore there 

would not be a significant radiological 

impact to the workers. 

Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions 

The primary sources of offsite dose to 

members of the public from the PBNP 

are radioactive gaseous and liquid 

effluents. As discussed above, operation 

at the proposed EPU conditions will not 

change the radioactive gaseous and 

liquid waste management systems’ 

abilities to perform their intended 

functions. Also, there would be no 

change to the radiation monitoring 

system and procedures used to control 

the release of radioactive effluents in 

accordance with NRC radiation 

protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 

and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

Based on the above, the offsite 

radiation dose to members of the public 

would continue to be within regulatory 

limits and therefore, would not be 

significant. 

Radioactive Solid Wastes 

Radioactive solid wastes include 

solids recovered from the reactor 

coolant systems, solids that come into 

contact with the radioactive liquids or 

gases, and solids used in the reactor 

coolant system operation. The licensee 

evaluated the potential effects of the 

proposed EPU on the solid waste 

management system. The largest volume 

of radioactive solid waste is low-level 

radioactive waste which includes 

sludge, oily waste, bead resin, spent 

filters, and dry active waste (DAW) that 

result from routine plant operation, 

refueling outages, and routine 

maintenance. DAW includes paper, 

plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor 

sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types 

of waste generated during routine 

maintenance and outages. 

As stated by the licensee, the 

proposed EPU would not have a 

significant effect on the generation of 

radioactive solid waste volume from the 

primary reactor coolant and secondary 

side systems since the systems functions 

are not changing and the volume inputs 

remain consistent with historical 

generation rates. The waste can be 

handled by the solid waste management 

system without modification. The 

equipment is designed and operated to 

process the waste into a form that 

minimizes potential harm to the 

workers and the environment. Waste 

processing areas are monitored for 

radiation and there are safety features to 

ensure worker doses are maintained 

within regulatory limits. The proposed 

EPU would not generate a new type of 

waste or create a new waste stream. 

Therefore, the impact from the proposed 

EPU on radioactive solid waste would 

not be significant. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Spent fuel from the PBNP is stored in 

the plant’s spent fuel pool and in dry 

casks in the Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation. The PBNP is 

licensed to use uranium-dioxide fuel 

that has a maximum enrichment of 5 

percent by weight uranium-235. The 

typical average enrichment is 

approximately 4.8 percent by weight of 

uranium-235. The average fuel assembly 

discharge burnup for the proposed EPU 

is expected to be approximately 52,000 

megawatt days per metric ton uranium 

(MWd/MTU) with no fuel pins 

exceeding the maximum fuel rod 

burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU. The 

licensee’s fuel reload design goals will 

maintain the PBNP fuel cycles within 

the limits bounded by the impacts 

analyzed in 10 CFR Part 51, Table S–3— 

Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Environmental Data, and Table S–4— 

Environmental Impact of Transportation 

of Fuel and Waste to and from One 

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power 

Reactor. Therefore, there would be no 

significant impacts resulting from spent 

nuclear fuel. 

Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses 

Postulated design-basis accidents are 

evaluated by both the licensee and the 

NRC staff to ensure that PBNP can 

withstand normal and abnormal 

transients and a broad spectrum of 

postulated accidents without undue 

hazard to the health and safety of the 

public. 

On December 8, 2008, the licensee 

submitted License Amendment Request 

(LAR) number 241 (LAR 241) to the 

NRC, to update its design basis accident 

analysis. LAR 241 requests NRC 

approval to use a set of revised 

radiological consequence analyses using 

the guidance in NRC’s Regulatory Guide 

1.183, Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. 

The analyses for LAR 241 are applicable 

for the power level in the proposed 

EPU. The NRC staff is evaluating LAR 

241 separately from the EPU to 

determine if it is acceptable to approve. 

The results of the NRC’s evaluation and 

conclusion will be documented in a 

Safety Evaluation Report that will be 

publically available on the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). 

In LAR 241, the licensee reviewed the 

various design-basis accident (DBA) 

analyses performed in support of the 

proposed EPU for their potential 

radiological consequences and 

concludes that the analyses adequately 

account for the effects of the proposed 

EPU. The licensee states that the plant 

site and its dose-mitigating engineered 

safety features remain acceptable with 

respect to the radiological consequences 

of postulated DBAs, since the calculated 

doses meet the exposure guideline 

values specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and 

General Design Criteria 19 in Appendix 

A of 10 CFR Part 50. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

77016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 

The amendment is a change to a 

requirement with respect to installation 

or use of a facility component located 

within the restricted area as defined in 

10 CFR Part 20. The Commission 

previously issued a proposed finding in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 17230) that 

the amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, and there has 

been no public comment on such 

finding. The NRC staff must determine 

that the amendment involves no 

significant increase in the amounts, and 

no significant changes in the types, of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite, and that there is no significant 

increase in individual or cumulative 

occupational radiation exposure. 

Accordingly, the amendment will then 

meet the eligibility criteria for 

categorical exclusion as set forth in 10 

CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 

51.22(b), no environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment 

need be prepared in connection with 

issuance of the amendment. 

Radiological Impacts Summary 

As discussed above, the proposed 

EPU would not result in any significant 

radiological impacts. Table 2 

summarizes the radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

EPU at the PBNP. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents .......................... Amount of additional radioactive gaseous effluents generated would be handled by the existing 

system. 

Radioactive Liquid Effluents ............................... Amount of additional radioactive liquid effluents generated would be handled by the existing 

system. 

Occupational Radiation Doses ........................... Occupational doses would continue to be maintained within NRC limits. 

Offsite Radiation Doses ...................................... Radiation doses to members of the public would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards. 

Radioactive Solid Waste ..................................... Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................................. Amount of additional spent nuclear fuel would be handled by the existing system. 

Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses .......... Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in the current environmental impacts. 

However, if the EPU were not approved 

for the PBNP, other agencies and 

electric power organizations may be 

required to pursue other means, such as 

fossil fuel or alternative fuel power 

generation, to provide electric 

generation capacity to offset future 

demand. Construction and operation of 

such a fossil-fueled or alternative-fueled 

plant may create impacts in air quality, 

land use, and waste management 

significantly greater than those 

identified for the proposed EPU at the 

PBNP. Furthermore, the proposed EPU 

does not involve environmental impacts 

that are significantly different from 

those originally identified in the PBNP 

FES and the SEIS–23. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

This action does not involve the use 

of any resources not previously 

considered in the FES. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on November 19, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the State of Wisconsin 

official regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. 

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the details provided in 

the draft EA, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action of implementing the 

PBNP EPU will not have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment because no permanent 

changes are involved and the temporary 

impacts are within the capacity of the 

plant systems. Accordingly, the NRC 

has preliminarily determined not to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement for the proposed action. A 

final determination to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a 

final finding of no significant impact 

will not be made until the public 

comment period expires. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s 

application dated April 7, 2009, and 

supplements dated May 13, 2010, and 

July 15, 2010 (on environmental issues). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on 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 at 1–800–397–4209, or 

301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr.Resource@nrc.gov. 

DATES: The comment period expires 

January 8, 2011. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the Commission 

is only able to assure consideration of 

comments received on or before January 

8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch 

(RDB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RDB at 301–492– 

3446. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 

is considering issuance of an 

amendment to Renewed Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–24 and 

DPR–27, issued to NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC, for operation of the Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

located in Manitowoc County, 

Wisconsin. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry A. Beltz, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Mail Stop O–8H4A, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, by 

telephone at 301–415–3049, or by e-mail 

at Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of December 2010. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77017 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Robert J. Pascarelli, 

Chief, Plant Licensing Branch III–1, Division 

of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31085 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–443, 72–63; NRC–2010– 

0381] 

Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC 

Seabrook Station Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 

(NextEra, the licensee) is the holder of 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–86, 

which authorizes operation of the 

Seabrook Station in Rockingham 

County, New Hampshire, pursuant to 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), part 50. The 

license provides, among other things, 

that the facility is subject to all rules, 

regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. 

Per 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, a 

general license is issued for the storage 

of spent fuel in an independent spent 

fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power 

reactor sites to persons authorized to 

possess or operate nuclear power 

reactors under 10 CFR part 50. NextEra 

holds a 10 CFR part 72 general license 

for storage of spent fuel at the Seabrook 

Station ISFSI. Under the terms of the 

general license, NextEra is currently 

using the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) 

NUHOMS® HD–32PTH cask model for 

storage of spent fuel, in accordance with 

Certificate of Compliance (CoC) 72– 

1030, Amendment No. 0. 

2.0 Request/Action 

10 CFR 72.212(b)(7) requires 

compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the CoC for the cask model 

used under the general license for 

storage of spent fuel at power reactor 

sites. The TN NUHOMS® HD–32PTH 

dry cask storage system (CoC 72–1030, 

Amendment No. 0) is currently in use 

at the Seabrook Station ISFSI. CoC 72– 

1030 provides requirements, conditions, 

and operating limits in Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications (TS). 

In a letter dated July 19, 2010 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML102080256), NextEra 

requested an exemption from 10 CFR 

72.212(b)(7). Specifically, NextEra 

requests exemption from the 

requirement in CoC 72–1030, 

Amendment No. 0, Appendix A, TS 

5.2.5.b, to conduct a daily visual 

inspection of the horizontal storage 

module (HSM) air vents to ensure they 

are not blocked, as the surveillance 

activity to monitor HSM thermal 

performance. NextEra instead wishes to 

use a daily temperature measurement 

program as an alternate method of 

monitoring the thermal performance of 

the HSMs, as included in the proposed 

Amendment No. 1 to CoC 72–1030, 

which is not yet an approved 

amendment to a cask model in 10 CFR 

part 72. 

On its own initiative, the NRC staff, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, has expanded 

the scope of the exemption being 

granted to include 10 CFR 

72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 72.214, in 

addition to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(7). These 

provisions are similar in requiring that 

the conditions of a specific CoC be met. 

10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) requires a 

general licensee to perform written 

evaluations, prior to use of the cask, that 

establish that conditions set forth in the 

CoC have been met. 10 CFR 72.214 sets 

forth the list of casks approved for 

storage of spent fuel under the 

conditions specified in their CoCs. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant such exemptions from 

the requirements of the regulations of 10 

CFR part 72 as it determines are 

authorized by law and will not endanger 

life or property or the common defense 

and security and are otherwise in the 

public interest. 

Authorized by Law 

This exemption would allow the 

licensee to discontinue the daily visual 

inspection of the HSM air vents to 

ensure they are not blocked (as required 

by CoC 72–1030, Amendment No. 0, TS 

5.2.5.b for monitoring HSM thermal 

performance), and instead use a daily 

temperature measurement program as 

an alternate method of monitoring HSM 

thermal performance. The provisions in 

10 CFR part 72 that NextEra is 

requesting exemption from, limit the 

general licensee to cask models (and any 

amendments to cask models) approved 

under 10 CFR part 72 and require 

general licensees to comply with the 

terms and conditions of the CoC for the 

approved cask model that they use. 

As stated above, 10 CFR 72.7 allows 

the NRC to grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 72. The 

NRC staff has determined that granting 

of the licensee’s proposed exemption 

will not result in a violation of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

or the Commission’s regulations. 

Therefore, the exemption is authorized 

by law. 

Will Not Endanger Life or Property or 

the Common Defense and Security 

The underlying purpose of the 

provisions in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 

10 CFR 72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR 72.214, 

is to limit 10 CFR part 72 general 

licensees to use of cask models 

approved under the provisions of 10 

CFR part 72 (which are listed in 10 CFR 

72.214) and require general licensees to 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of the CoC for the approved cask model 

that they use. 

The exemption would allow NextEra 

to discontinue the daily visual 

inspection of the HSM air vents to 

ensure they are not blocked (as required 

by CoC 72–1030, Amendment No. 0, TS 

5.2.5.b), and instead use a daily 

temperature measurement program as 

an alternate method of monitoring HSM 

thermal performance (as proposed in 

Amendment No. 1 to CoC 72–1030). 

TN submitted an application for 

Amendment No. 1 to CoC 72–1030 on 

November 1, 2007 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML073110525), as supplemented. In 

the Amendment No. 1 request, TN 

proposed adding use of a daily 

temperature measurement program as 

an alternate method of monitoring HSM 

thermal performance. Under the 

proposed Amendment No. 1, the cask 

user would have the option to either 

implement a daily visual inspection of 

the HSM air vents to ensure they are not 

blocked (TS 5.2.5.b in the current 

Amendment No. 0 and the proposed 

Amendment No. 1) or implement a daily 

temperature measurement program (TS 

5.2.5.c in the proposed Amendment No. 

1) to monitor HSM thermal 

performance. 

NRC staff initially completed its 

technical review of the proposed 

Amendment No. 1 to CoC 72–1030 in 

October 2009, and the associated 

proposed rule and direct final rule were 

published in the Federal Register in 

May 2010. However, the proposed rule 

and direct final rule were withdrawn in 

July 2010, after TN identified an issue 

with imprecise TS language (not related 

to TS 5.2.5). Since that time, the 

technical staff completed its review of 

TN’s revised TS language in September 

2010, and a revised rulemaking package 

(which includes the proposed CoC, 

proposed TS, and a preliminary Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER)) for 

Amendment No. 1 is currently in the 

rulemaking concurrence process. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES