10834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

areas of regulatory program performance 

and safety culture. In addition, Entergy 

has not provided the NRC with 

information describing how the recent 

personnel changes resulting from the 

independent internal investigation will 

affect Entergy’s ability to implement 

NRC-regulated programs at Vermont 

Yankee, and any compensatory 

measures Entergy has taken in response. 

The NRC will independently review and 

assess the results of Entergy’s 

independent investigation, and 

determine any implications on NRCregulated activities at the facility. 

IV 

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 

161c, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 

2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order for 

the Commission to determine whether 

Vermont Yankee’s license should be 

modified, suspended, or revoked, or 

other enforcement action taken to 

ensure compliance with NRC regulatory 

requirements, Entergy is required to 

submit to the Regional Administrator, 

NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King 

of Prussia, PA, 19406 (with copies to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement and to 

the Assistant General Counsel for 

Materials Litigation and Enforcement, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001), within 30 

days of the date of this Demand for 

Information, the following information, 

in writing, and under oath or 

affirmation: 

1. Information regarding whether 

communications over the past five years 

to the NRC by the aforementioned 

employees that were material to NRCregulated activities were complete and 

accurate, and the basis for that 

conclusion. The communications shall 

include, but not be limited to, required 

reports to the NRC, interactions with 

NRC inspection staff, and submittals to 

support NRC licensing decisions, 

including the license renewal process. 

The information shall also describe any 

impacts on safety and security for any 

communications to the NRC found to be 

incomplete or inaccurate. 

2. Any corrective actions or 

compensatory measures taken or 

planned to address any incomplete or 

inaccurate communications provided to 

the NRC by the aforementioned 

employees identified by your review 

conducted in response to Item 1. 

3. A description of how, in light of the 

organizational changes made in 

response to the independent internal 

investigation, Entergy is providing for 

appropriate implementation of NRCregulated programs (e.g., Regulatory 

Licensing, Security, Emergency 

Preparedness, etc.) 

4. A description of how Entergy is 

identifying and responding to any 

adverse implications to the Vermont 

Yankee site safety culture as a result of 

this investigation, its findings, and the 

actions taken regarding the 

aforementioned employees. 

5. Confirmation that Entergy intends 

to make the independent internal 

investigation available to the NRC to 

allow the NRC to independently 

evaluate Entergy’s investigation for any 

impact on NRC-regulated activities. 

The Director, Office of Enforcement, 

may relax or rescind any of these items 

for good cause shown. 

V 

After reviewing your response, the 

NRC will determine whether further 

action is necessary to ensure 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of March, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4934 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–397; NRC–2010–0084] 

Energy Northwest; Columbia 

Generating Station; 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 Facility Operating 

License No. DPR–46, issued to Energy 

Northwest (the licensee), for operation 

of the Columbia Generating Station 

(CGS), located in Benton County, 

Washington. 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 

Energy Northwest from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for one new requirement of 10 CFR part 

73. Specifically, Energy Northwest 

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. Energy 

Northwest has proposed an alternate 

full compliance implementation date of 

May 15, 2010, 45 days 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, 

support structures, water, or land at the 

Energy Northwest site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

January 27, 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 Energy Northwest security system 

due to manufacturing delays of one item 

at the vendor. 

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 13926). 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 MagnusonVerDate Nov<24>2008 19:04 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10835 

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 (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 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ 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 CGS dated December 

1981. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 1, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Washington State 

official, Mr. R. Cowley of the Office of 

Radiation Protection, 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 January 27, 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, Room O–1 F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the Agencywide 

Documents 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 

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 25th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Lynnea E. Wilkins, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4676 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–285; NRC–2010–0087] 

Omaha Public Power District, Fort 

Calhoun Station, Unit 1, 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 certain new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–40, issued 

to Omaha Public Power District (OPPD, 

the licensee), for operation of Fort 

Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS), located 

in Washington County, Nebraska. 

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 

FCS from the required implementation 

date of March 31, 2010, for several new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73. 

Specifically, FCS would be granted an 

exemption from being in full 

compliance with certain new 

requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010, deadline. OPPD 

has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of 

October 5, 2011, approximately 19 

months beyond the date required by 10 

CFR part 73. The proposed action, an 

extension of the schedule for 

completion of certain actions required 

by the revised 10 CFR part 73, does not 

involve any physical changes to the 

reactor, fuel, plant structures, support 

structures, water, or land at the FCS site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

December 31, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 21, 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 FCS security system due to the time 

required for significant design, 

procurement, and installation activities 

needed to implement the required 

upgrades. 

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 13926). 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES