3662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

January 2011. The NRC staff has rewritten DG–1245 to more clearly 

identify the dams and other water 

control structures subject to this 

guidance document and is issuing it for 

a second round of public review and 

comment. 

Since the release of Revision 1 of RG 

1.127 in March 1978, the Federal 

guidelines for safety and inspection of 

dams and other water control structures 

have undergone significant revision. 

This DG is being updated to provide 

licensees and applicants with the most 

current guidance and to help ensure that 

applicants and licensees are able to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable regulations. 

This DG describes a method the staff 

of the NRC considers acceptable for 

designing and developing appropriate 

inservice inspection (ISI) and 

surveillance programs for dams, slopes, 

canals, and other water-control 

structures associated with emergency 

cooling water systems or flood 

protection of nuclear power plants. 

This DG applies only to water control 

structures (e.g., dams, slopes, canals, 

reservoirs, and associated conveyance 

facilities) which are part of the nuclear 

power plant and whose failure could 

either cause site flooding, the failure of 

the plant’s emergency cooling systems, 

or otherwise endanger the plant. 

III. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

This DG, if finalized, does not 

constitute backfitting as defined in 

§ 50.109 of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) (the 

Backfit Rule), and is not otherwise 

inconsistent with the issue finality 

provisions in 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, 

Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear 

Power Plants.’’ This DG provides 

guidance on one possible means for 

meeting NRC’s regulatory requirements 

for developing appropriate ISI and 

surveillance programs for dams, slopes, 

canals, and other water-control 

structures associated with emergency 

cooling and flood protection water 

systems as required by General Design 

Criterion (GDC) 45, ‘‘Inspection of 

Cooling Water System,’’ of Appendix A, 

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear 

Power Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities’’ (10 CFR part 50). 

Existing licensees and applicants of 

final design certification rules will not 

be required to comply with the new 

positions set forth in this DG, unless the 

licensee or design certification rule 

applicant seeks a voluntary change to its 

licensing basis with respect to ISI or 

surveillance programs for water control 

structures, and where the NRC 

determines that the safety review must 

include consideration of the ISI or 

surveillance program. Further 

information on the staff’s use of the DG, 

if finalized, is contained in the DG 

under Section D. Implementation. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of January, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Harriet Karagiannis, 

Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Guidance 

and Generic Issues Branch, Division of 

Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01155 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–302; NRC–2015–0010] 

Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal 

River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact; final 

issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of exemptions in response to a 

March 28, 2014, request from Duke 

Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF or the 

licensee), representing itself and the 

other owners of the Crystal River Unit 

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR–3). One 

exemption would permit the licensee to 

use funds from the CR–3 

decommissioning trust (the Trust) for 

irradiated fuel management and site 

restoration activities. Another 

exemption would allow the licensee to 

use withdrawals from the Trust for these 

activities without prior notification to 

the NRC. The NRC staff is issuing a final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

final Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) associated with the proposed 

exemptions. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0010 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0010. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS public documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if that document 

is available in ADAMS) is provided the 

first time that a document is referenced. 

The request for exemption, dated March 

28, 2014, is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14098A037. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3229; email: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The NRC is considering issuance of 

exemptions from Sections 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) for Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–72, issued to DEF, for CR–3, 

located in Citrus County, Florida. The 

licensee requested the exemptions by 

letter dated March 28, 2014. The 

exemptions would allow the licensee to 

use funds from the Trust for irradiated 

fuel management and site restoration 

activities without prior notice to the 

NRC, in the same manner that funds 

from the Trust are used under 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8) for decommissioning 

activities. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, 

the NRC has reviewed the requirements 

in 10 CFR 51.20(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c) 

and has determined that an EA is the 

appropriate form of environmental 

review. Based on the results of the EA, 

which is provided in Section II below, 

the NRC is issuing this final FONSI. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Description of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

DEF from meeting the requirements set 

forth in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 

CFR 50.75(h)(2). Specifically, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3663 

proposed action would allow DEF to use 

funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel 

management and site restoration 

activities not associated with 

radiological decontamination and 

would exempt DEF from meeting the 

requirement for prior notification to the 

NRC for these activities. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

March 28, 2014. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

By letter dated February 20, 2013 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13056A005), 

DEF informed the NRC that it had 

permanently ceased power operations at 

CR–3 and that the CR–3 reactor vessel 

had been permanently defueled. CR–3 

has not operated since September 2009. 

As required by 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), decommissioning trust 

funds may be used by the licensee if the 

withdrawals are for legitimate 

decommissioning activity expenses, 

consistent with the definition of 

decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. This 

definition addresses radiological 

decontamination and does not include 

activities associated with irradiated fuel 

management or site restoration. 

Similarly, the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(2) restrict the use of 

decommissioning trust fund 

disbursements (other than for ordinary 

and incidental expenses) to 

decommissioning expenses until final 

decommissioning has been completed. 

Therefore, exemptions from 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) 

are needed to allow DEF to use funds 

from the Trust for irradiated fuel 

management and site restoration 

activities. 

The licensee states that the Trust 

contains funds for decommissioning 

that are commingled with funds 

intended for irradiated fuel management 

and other site restoration activities not 

associated with radiological 

decontamination. The adequacy of 

funds in the Trust to cover the costs of 

activities associated with irradiated fuel 

management and site restoration in 

addition to radiological 

decontamination through license 

termination is supported by the CR–3 

Annual Decommissioning and 

Irradiated Fuel Management Financial 

Status Report submitted by DEF in a 

March 31, 2014, letter (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14098A039). The 

licensee states that it needs access to the 

funds in the Trust in excess of those 

needed for radiological decontamination 

to support irradiated fuel management 

and other site restoration activities not 

associated with radiological 

decontamination. 

The requirements of 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(2) further provide that, except 

for decommissioning withdrawals being 

made under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) or for 

payments of ordinary administrative 

costs and other incidental expenses of 

the Trust, no disbursement may be 

made from the Trust until written notice 

of the intention to make a disbursement 

has been given to the NRC at least 30 

working days in advance of the 

intended disbursement. Therefore, an 

exemption from 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) is 

needed to allow DEF to use funds from 

the Trust for irradiated fuel management 

and site restoration activities without 

prior NRC notification. 

In summary, by letter dated March 28, 

2014, DEF requested exemptions to 

allow Trust withdrawals, without prior 

written notification to the NRC, for 

irradiated fuel management and site 

restoration activities. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The proposed action involves 

exemptions from requirements that are 

of a financial or administrative nature 

and that do not have an impact on the 

environment. The NRC has completed 

its evaluation of the proposed action 

and concludes that there is reasonable 

assurance that adequate funds are 

available in the Trust to complete all 

activities associated with 

decommissioning, site restoration, and 

irradiated fuel management. There is no 

decrease in safety associated with the 

use of the Trust to fund activities 

associated with irradiated fuel 

management and site restoration. 

Section 50.82(a)(8)(v) of 10 CFR requires 

a licensee to submit a financial 

assurance status report annually 

between the time of submitting its 

decommissioning cost estimate and 

submitting its final radiation survey and 

demonstrating that residual 

radioactivity has been reduced to a level 

that permits termination of its license. If 

the remaining balance, plus expected 

rate of return, plus any other financial 

surety mechanism does not cover the 

estimated costs to complete the 

decommissioning, additional financial 

assurance must be provided. These 

annual reports provide a means for the 

NRC to monitor the adequacy of 

available funding. Since the exemptions 

would allow DEF to use funds from the 

Trust that are in excess of those required 

for radiological decontamination of the 

site and the adequacy of funds 

dedicated for radiological 

decontamination are not affected by the 

proposed exemptions, there is 

reasonable assurance that there will be 

no environmental impact due to lack of 

adequate funding for decommissioning. 

The proposed action will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. No changes 

are being made in the types of effluents 

that may be released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in the amount of 

any effluent released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Therefore, 

there are no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

With regard to potential 

nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have any foreseeable 

impacts to land, air, or water resources, 

including impacts to biota. In addition, 

there are no known socioeconomic or 

environmental justice impacts 

associated with such proposed action. 

Therefore, there are no significant 

nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ 

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 proposed action does not involve 

the use of any different resources than 

those previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for CR–3, 

dated May 1973 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML091520178). 

Agencies or Persons Consulted 

The staff did not enter into 

consultation with any other Federal 

Agency or with the State of Florida 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. On October 14, 

2014, the Florida state representatives 

were notified of the EA and FONSI. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The licensee has proposed 

exemptions from 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2), 

which would allow DEF to use funds 

from the Trust for irradiated fuel 

management and site restoration 

activities, without prior written 

notification to the NRC. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the 

NRC conducted the environmental 

assessment for the proposed action 

included in Section II above and 

incorporated by reference in this 

finding. On the basis of this 

environmental assessment, the NRC 

concludes that the proposed action will 

not have significant effects on the 

quality of the human environment. 

Accordingly, the NRC has determined 

not to prepare an environmental impact 

statement for the proposed action. Other 

than the licensee’s letter, dated March 

28, 2014, there are no other 

environmental documents associated 

with this review. This document is 

available for public inspection as 

indicated above. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of January, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Douglas A. Broaddus, 

Chief, Plant Licensing Branch IV–2 and 

Decommissioning Transition Branch, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01195 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0009] 

In the Matter of All Operating Reactor 

Licensees With Mark I Containments 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Director’s decision under 10 

CFR 2.206; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has issued a 

director’s decision with regard to a 

petition dated April 13, 2011, filed by 

Mr. Paul Gunter, Director for Reactor 

Oversight Project of Beyond Nuclear 

(the petitioner), requesting that the NRC 

take action with regard to all operating 

General Electric (GE) Boiling Water 

Reactor (BWR) licensees with Mark I 

primary containment system (the 

licensees). 

DATES: January 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0009 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0009. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3442; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siva 

P. Lingam, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–1564, email: 

Siva.Lingam@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Deputy Director, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

has issued a director’s decision 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14337A243) 

on a petition filed by the petitioner on 

April 13, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11104A058). 

The petitioner requested that the NRC 

order the immediate suspension of the 

operating licenses of all GE BWRs that 

utilize the Mark I primary containment 

system. As the basis of the request, the 

petitioner cited the events in Japan at 

the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power 

plant. 

On June 8, 2011 and October 7, 2011, 

the petitioner met with the NRC’s 

Petition Review Board. The meeting 

provided the petitioner an opportunity 

to provide additional information and to 

clarify the issues cited in the petition. 

Information regarding those meetings, 

including meeting transcripts are 

available in ADAMS under Package 

Accession Nos. ML11166A137 and 

ML11292A159 respectively. 

The NRC sent a copy of the proposed 

director’s decision to the petitioner and 

the licensees for comments on October 

27, 2014 (ADAMS Package Accession 

No. ML14198A098). The petitioner and 

the licensees were asked to provide 

comments within 30 days on any part of 

the proposed director’s decision that 

was considered to be erroneous or any 

issues in the petition that were not 

addressed. The NRC staff did not 

receive comments on the proposed 

director’s decision. 

The Deputy Director of the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 

determined that the request, to require 

that the NRC order the immediate 

suspension of the operating licenses of 

all GE BWRs that utilize the Mark I 

primary containment system, was 

resolved through the issuance of orders, 

written statements in accordance with 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), rulemaking, and 

the Emergency Response Data System 

initiative. The reasons for this decision 

are explained in the director’s decision 

(DD–15–01) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of 

the Commission’s regulations. 

The NRC will file a copy of the 

director’s decision with the Secretary of 

the Commission for the Commission’s 

review in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.206. As provided by this regulation, 

the director’s decision will constitute 

the final action of the Commission 25 

days after the date of the decision unless 

the Commission, on its own motion, 

institutes a review of the director’s 

decision in that time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of January, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jennifer L. Uhle, 

Deputy Director, for Reactor Safety Programs 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01197 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Proposed Submission of Information 

Collections for OMB Review; Comment 

Request; Reportable Events; Notice of 

Failure To Make Required 

Contributions 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of intention to request 

extension of OMB approval of revised 

collections of information. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) intends to request 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) extend approval (with 

modifications), under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, of two collections of 

information under PBGC’s regulation on 

Reportable Events and Certain Other 

Notification Requirements (OMB control 

numbers 1212–0013 and 1212–0041, 

expiring March 31, 2015). This notice 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES