9308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to comment on proposed 

information collections. The comments 

and suggestions should address one or 

more of the following points: (a) 

Whether the proposed information 

collections are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of NARA; 

(b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed information 

collections; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways, including the use of information 

technology, to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents; and (e) whether small 

businesses are affected by these 

collections. The comments that are 

submitted will be summarized and 

included in the NARA request for Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. In this notice, 

NARA is soliciting comments 

concerning the following information 

collection: 

1. Title: National Personnel Records 

Center (NPRC) Survey of Customer 

Satisfaction. 

OMB Number: 3095–0042. 

Agency Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Affected Public: Federal, State and 

local government agencies, veterans, 

and individuals who write the Military 

Personnel Records (MPR) facility for 

information from or copies of official 

military personnel files. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

(when respondent writes to MPR 

requesting information from official 

military personnel files). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 167 hours. 

Abstract: The information collection 

is prescribed by EO 12862 issued 

September 11, 1993, which requires 

Federal agencies to survey their 

customers concerning customer service. 

The general purpose of this data 

collection is to provide MPR 

management with an ongoing 

mechanism for monitoring customer 

satisfaction. In particular, the purpose of 

the National Personnel Records Center 

(NPRC) Survey of Customer Satisfaction 

is to (1) determine customer satisfaction 

with MPR’s reference service process, 

(2) identify areas within the reference 

service process for improvement, and 

(3) provide MPR management with 

customer feedback on the effectiveness 

of BPR initiatives designed to improve 

customer service as they are 

implemented. In addition to supporting 

the BPR effort, the National Personnel 

Records Center (NPRC) Survey of 

Customer Satisfaction helps NARA in 

responding to performance planning 

and reporting requirements contained in 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA). 

2. Title: Presidential Libraries 

Museum Visitor Survey. 

OMB Number: 3095–0066. 

Agency Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Affected Public: Individuals who visit 

the museums at the Presidential 

libraries. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

75,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

(when an individual visits a Presidential 

Library). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 18,750 hours. 

Abstract: The survey is comprised of 

a set of questions designed to allow for 

a statistical analysis that will ultimately 

provide actionable information to 

NARA. The survey includes questions 

that measure the visitor’s satisfaction in 

general and with specific aspects of 

their visit. These questions serve as 

dependent variables for analytical 

purposes. Other questions provide 

attitudinal, behavioral, and 

demographic data that are used to help 

understand variation in the satisfaction 

variables. Using statistical analyses, 

Harris Interactive will determine the 

factors that drive the visitor’s 

perceptions of quality and satisfaction 

with the Library they visited. 

Additionally, natural groupings of 

visitors defined by similarity based on 

these attitudinal, behavioral, and 

demographic variables can be developed 

and targeted for outreach purposes. The 

information collected through this effort 

will inform program activity, operation, 

and oversight, and will benefit Library 

and NARA staff and management in 

making critical decisions about 

resources allocation, museum operation 

and program direction. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

Martha Morphy, 

Assistant Archivist for Information Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–4587 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–438 and 50–439; NRC– 

2009–0093] 

Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte 

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has prepared this 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

associated with a request by the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to 

reinstate the construction permits (CPs) 

CPPR–122 and CPPR–123 for the 

Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Units 1 

and 2, respectively. Based on 

information provided in TVA’s letters, 

dated August 26, September 25, and 

November 24, 2008, and the NRC staff’s 

independent review of references, the 

NRC staff did not identify any 

significant impact associated with the 

reinstatement of the BLN Units 1 and 2 

CPs and the return of the facility to a 

terminated plant status. The NRC staff is 

documenting its environmental review 

in this EA. 

Environmental Assessment 

Plant Site and Environs 

BLN Units 1 and 2 are pressurizedwater reactor sites that have been 

partially completed. The units are 

located on a peninsula between Town 

Creek and the Tennessee River at River 

Mile 392 on the west shore of 

Guntersville Reservoir near Hollywood, 

Alabama. Most of the 1600 acres of the 

site have been previously impacted by 

the near completion of both BLN Units 

1 and 2. 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

TVA requests reinstatement of the CPs 

for BLN Units 1 and 2. The Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC now, the 

NRC) issued the Final Environmental 

Statement (FES) in June 1974 for BLN 

Units 1 and 2. On December 12, 1974, 

CPs were issued by the NRC. Much of 

the construction work for BLN Units 1 

and 2 was subsequently completed. On 

April 6, 2006, TVA submitted a request 

to withdraw the CPs for BLN Units 1 

and 2. On September 14, 2006, the NRC 

staff withdrew the CPs for BLN Units 1 

and 2 based on the request. 

Subsequently, TVA submitted a request 

on August 26, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 25, 2008, and 

November 24, 2008, to reinstate the CPs 

for BLN Units 1 and 2. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN 

Units 1 and 2 and the return to a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9309 

terminated plant status may 

subsequently enable TVA to complete 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

This EA summarizes the radiological 

and nonradiological impacts to the 

environment that may result from the 

proposed reinstatement of the CPs. 

Non-Radiological Impacts 

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts 

Land use and aesthetic impacts from 

the proposed reinstatement of the CPs 

include impacts from completing the 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. TVA 

states in its letter of August 26, 2008, 

that BLN Units 1 and 2 are 90 percent 

and 58 percent complete in 

construction, respectively, with most of 

the infrastructure work completed. 

Remaining construction-related 

activities at BLN Units 1 and 2 include: 

The potential realignment of the 

southern entrance road 1200 feet east of 

its existing location; the construction of 

the Unit 2 startup and recirculation 

equipment building on previously 

disturbed land near the Unit 2 auxiliary 

building; the installation of a new 

power stores building; and some 

changes to the gatehouse and protected 

area fencing. Additionally, clay borrow 

pits would be dug in wooded areas 

immediately east of the main buildings. 

In response to an NRC staff’s request 

for additional information (RAI), TVA 

noted in its November 24, 2008, letter 

that few facilities would cause further 

land disturbance, and that previously 

disturbed land, existing parking lots, 

access road, offices, workshops, and 

warehouses at BLN would be used 

during the completion of construction. 

Onsite land use conditions at BLN, 

including conditions along existing 

transmission lines corridors (no new 

lines would be required to complete the 

two units), switch yards, and 

substations, would not change. The 

applicant concluded that any impacts to 

natural resources from projected site 

construction activities would remain 

bounded by the original 1974 FES 

assessment. 

Based on the information provided by 

TVA, the NRC staff concludes that there 

would be no significant impact on land 

use and aesthetic resources in the 

vicinity of BLN Units 1 and 2. The 

majority of construction activities have 

already occurred and the impacts have 

been assessed and documented in the 

original 1974 FES. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. 

Historic properties are defined as 

resources that are eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are 

listed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), under Title 36, 

‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public Property,’’ 

Part 60, Section 4, ‘‘Criteria for 

Evaluation’’ (36 CFR 60.4). The historic 

preservation review process (Section 

106 of the NHPA) is outlined in 

regulations issued by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation in Title 

36, ‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property,’’ Part 800, ‘‘Protection of 

Historic Properties’’ (36 CFR Part 800). 

Reinstatement of the BLN CPs and 

completion of construction at the BLN 

sites is a Federal action that could 

possibly affect either known or 

undiscovered historic properties located 

on or near the plant site and its 

associated transmission lines. In 

accordance with the provisions of the 

NHPA, the NRC makes a reasonable 

effort to identify historic properties in 

the area of potential effect. The area of 

potential effect for this action is the 

plant site and the immediate environs. 

To assess the environmental impacts 

to historic and archaeological resources, 

the NRC staff reviewed information 

provided by TVA in its 1974 FES, along 

with supplemental information 

provided by letters to the NRC dated 

August 26, 2002, and November 24, 

2008. Additional site details were also 

obtained from reviewing the 

Environmental Report in TVA’s October 

30, 2007, application for a Combined 

License (COL ER) for Bellefonte Units 3 

and 4. 

In 1936, archaeological salvage 

excavations were conducted at the 

Bellefonte site associated with the 

construction of Guntersville Reservoir. 

In 1972, TVA funded an archaeological 

reconnaissance investigation at the 

Bellefonte site to locate any historic and 

archaeological sites that would be 

adversely impacted by the construction 

of BLN Units 1 and 2. The 1972 survey 

identified three new prehistoric sites 

(1JA300–302), and located two sites 

(1JA978 and 1JA112) that were 

previously recorded during the preinundation survey of Guntersville Lake 

according to the FES 1974. Site 1JA978 

was noted in the riverbank and 

contained both Archaic and Woodland 

artifacts. Site 1JA112 was primarily 

inundated; therefore, cultural affiliation 

could not be determined for this site. A 

2006 survey conducted by TVA 

determined that sites 1JA978 and 

1JA112 are located outside of BLN’s 

property boundary. Analysis of artifacts 

recovered at 1JA300 reveal that the site 

was occupied during the Archaic, 

Woodland, and Mississippian cultural 

periods. Since 1JA300 was going to be 

adversely impacted by the construction 

of the plant intake structure and access 

road, data recovery excavations were 

conducted on site 1JA300 in 1973 and 

1974 by the University of Alabama. 

Information provided by TVA in its COL 

ER indicated that a total of 22 features 

and 9 burials were excavated from the 

site. One of these features consisted of 

a small structure footprint, which is 

indicative of village-level habitation. 

The human remains are located at the 

University of Alabama. By letter dated 

November 24, 2008, TVA stated that 

additional archaeological surveys have 

been conducted. In 2006, TVA 

conducted a survey to document and 

evaluate all archaeological resources at 

BLN. During this survey, it was 

determined that site 1JA300 was 

destroyed during construction of the 

intake structure, and therefore, is no 

longer eligible for the NRHP. 

Site 1JA301 was recorded during the 

1972 reconnaissance survey as surficial 

remains (lithic debris) dating to the 

Archaic period. Analysis of the lithic 

debris from this site suggests that it was 

an intermittent campsite. It was 

recommended that any further 

excavation of this site would be 

unproductive. The 1972 report notes 

that site 1JA301 was heavily disturbed 

and reduced to plow zone scatter of 

prehistoric materials. Additional testing 

conducted determined that site 1JA301 

was destroyed during construction of 

BLN Units 1 and 2 and is not eligible 

for inclusion in the NRHP according to 

the COL ER. 

Site 1JA302 was purported to be 

remotely located to the construction 

area according to the FES 1974. Artifacts 

recovered from 1JA302 dated the site to 

the Woodland period. Limited 

excavation was proposed, however, 

further excavations were not conducted. 

Site 1JA302 lies outside the BLN 

property boundary. Site 1JA302 was 

determined to be eligible for inclusion 

on the NRHP. 

Site 1JA111 is an undefined 

prehistoric occupation site. Additional 

testing was conducted at the site during 

the 2006 survey. A total of 93 artifacts 

were recovered, however, no diagnostic 

lithic artifacts were recovered to date 

from the site according to the COL ER. 

However, a small number of ceramics 

dating to the Mississippian period were 

recovered. Based upon the stratigraphic 

profiles and patterns of artifact recovery, 

TVA indicated that site 1JA111 appears 

to contain buried, intact archaeological 

deposits and has the potential to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

contribute significant scientific and 

archaeological information regarding the 

prehistory of the Guntersville Basin 

according to the TVA report dated 

October 2007. Site 1JA111 remains 

potentially eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP. TVA has indicated that the site 

will be fenced off, and marked on BLN 

site drawings as an area to be avoided 

by any future ground disturbing 

activities according to the TVA letters 

dated August 26, September 25, and 

November 24, 2008. 

Site 1JA113 is another undefined 

prehistoric occupation site. Additional 

testing was conducted at the site in 2006 

and yielded a single prehistoric lithic 

flake, however, site 1JA113 does not 

meet the criteria of eligibility for the 

NRHP according to the TVA letters 

dated August 26, September 25, and 

November 24, 2008. 

One historic site was identified 

during the 2006 survey. Site 1JA1103 

consists of a collapsed structure and 

associated outbuilding according to the 

COL ER. The 2006 survey revealed that 

this site was used as a temporary storage 

and weather shelter during the 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 

according to the TVA letters dated 

August 26, September 25, and 

November 24, 2008. Site 1JA1103 has 

had its archaeological integrity altered 

by the construction of BLN Units 1 and 

2; therefore, the site is not eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP. Regardless of 

the site’s eligibility, TVA has indicated 

that the site will be avoided. 

Adjacent to the BLN site was the 

Town of Bellefonte the former Jackson 

County seat. The Town of Bellefonte is 

listed in the Alabama Statewide Plan of 

Historic Preservation and was 

determined eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP. Among the former town 

buildings was a tavern that dated to 

1845 according to the 1974 FES. This 

building and other structures associated 

with the Bellefonte town site were 

moved in 1974. The town site is not on 

TVA property, and the buildings were 

removed by the owners according to the 

TVA letter dated August 26, 2002. 

The BLN site was heavily disturbed 

by the construction of BLN Units 1 and 

2, which began in the 1970s. 

Reinstatement of the CPs and 

completing construction of BLN Units 1 

and 2 would involve some ground 

disturbing activities in previously 

undisturbed areas of the site. The NRC 

staff anticipates that for areas not 

previously surveyed, an archaeological 

investigation would be conducted by a 

qualified archaeologist prior to any 

ground disturbing activities by TVA. 

Additionally, since TVA is a Federal 

agency, an NHPA Section 106 review 

and consultation with the Alabama 

Historical Commission would be 

initiated for such activities. 

Based on the information provided in 

the 1974 FES, and TVA’s subsequent 

responses to the NRC staff’s RAIs in 

letters dated August 26, 2002, and 

November 24, 2008, the NRC staff finds 

that the potential impacts of reinstating 

the CPs and completing construction of 

BLN Units 1 and 2 would have no 

adverse effect on historic and 

archaeological resources. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts from the 

proposed reinstatement of the CPs and 

completing the construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2 include an increase in the 

size of the workforce at BLN and 

associated increased demand for public 

services and housing in the region. 

In its August 26, 2002, response to an 

RAI, TVA estimated that the number of 

workers needed to complete the 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 could 

peak at about 4600 workers; comprised 

of approximately 2600 construction 

workers, 900 engineers, 850 plant staff, 

and 250 start-up testing staff. Most 

construction workers would relocate 

temporarily to Jackson County resulting 

in a short-term increase in population 

along with increased demands for 

public services and housing. TVA 

confirmed this estimate in a letter to the 

NRC dated November 24, 2008, and 

provided additional demographic 

information. Because construction work 

would be short-term, most construction 

workers would stay in rental homes, 

apartments, mobile homes, and campertrailers. According to 2000 Census 

information, there were over 46,000 

vacant housing units in the 50-mile 

radius of BLN, including over 2500 

vacant housing units in Jackson County, 

that could potentially ease the demand 

for local rental housing should 

construction activities resume. 

TVA has acknowledged in its 

November 24, 2008, letter that 

completing the construction activities of 

BLN Units 1 and 2 may require greater 

than anticipated numbers of 

construction workers, which could 

significantly affect the availability of 

public services (i.e., schools, 

transportation, police and fire services, 

road infrastructure, water supplies, etc.). 

Reinstatement of the CPs and 

completing the construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2 could, therefore, result in 

greater socioeconomic impacts than 

those projected in the 1974 FES. 

However, these impacts would have a 

relatively short duration. TVA has also 

committed to monitor the situation and 

work with local and state officials to 

mitigate any unacceptable adverse 

socioeconomic impacts that might result 

according to the TVA letter dated 

November 24, 2008. 

Based on a review of the information 

provided by TVA and relevant census 

data, the NRC staff concludes that 

reinstating the CPs and completing the 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 

would not result in adverse 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Environmental Justice 

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 

reinstating the CPs and completing the 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Adverse health effects are measured in 

terms of the risk and rate of fatal or 

nonfatal adverse impacts on human 

health. 

Disproportionately high and adverse 

human health effects occur when the 

risk or rate of exposure to an 

environmental hazard for a minority or 

low-income population is significant 

and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 

the general population or for another 

appropriate comparison group. A 

disproportionately high environmental 

impact that is significant refers to an 

impact or risk of an impact on the 

natural or physical environment in a 

low-income or minority community that 

appreciably exceeds the environmental 

impact on the larger community. Such 

effects may include ecological, cultural, 

human health, economic, or social 

impacts. Some of these potential effects 

have been identified in resource areas 

discussed in this EA. For example, 

increased demand for rental housing 

during construction could 

disproportionately affect low-income 

populations. Minority and low-income 

populations are subsets of the general 

public residing around BLN, and all are 

exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from 

construction activities at BLN. 

Minority Populations in the Vicinity 

of BLN—According to 2000 census data, 

18.9 percent of the population 

(approximately 1,083,000 individuals) 

residing within a 50-mile radius of BLN 

identified themselves as minority 

individuals. The largest minority group 

was Black or African American (157,000 

persons or 14.5 percent), followed by 

Hispanic or Latino of any race (24,000 

or about 2.2 percent). About 8.1 percent 

of the Jackson County population 

identified themselves as minorities, 

with Black or African American the 

largest minority group (3.7 percent) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9311 

1Federal action means any activity engaged in by 

a department, agency or instrumentality of the 

Federal Government, or any activity that a 

department, agency or instrumentality of the 

Federal Government supports in any way, provides 

financial assistance for, licenses, permits, or 

approves, other than activities related to 

transportation plans, programs, and projects 

developed, funded, or approved under title 23 

U.S.C or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C 1601 et 

seq.). (40 CFR 51.852) 

2An area is designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ for a 

criteria pollutant if it does not meet National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the 

pollutant. 

3A maintenance area has been redesignated by a 

State from nonattainment to attainment; the State 

must submit to EPA a plan for maintaining NAAQS 

as a revision to its State Implementation Plan. 

followed by Hispanic or Latino (1.1 

percent) according to the U.S. Census 

Bureau (USCB). According to USCB 

census data estimates for 2006, the 

minority population of Jackson County, 

as a percent of total population, had 

increased to 9.2 percent. 

Low-Income Populations in the 

Vicinity of BLN—According to 2000 

census data, approximately 32,000 

families and 143,000 individuals 

(approximately 10.5 and 13.2 percent, 

respectively) residing within a 50-mile 

radius of BLN 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, the median 

household income for Alabama in 2004 

was $37,062, while 16.1 percent of the 

state population was determined to be 

living below the Federal poverty 

threshold. Jackson County had a lower 

median household income ($33,733) 

and a lower percentage (15.3 percent) of 

individuals living below the poverty 

level. 

Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

due to the reinstatement of the CPs and 

completing the construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2 would mostly consist of 

environmental and socioeconomic 

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

employment, and housing impacts). 

Since most of the construction work 

at BLN has been completed, 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. As employment 

increases at BLN during completion of 

BLN Units 1 and 2, employment 

opportunities for minority and lowincome populations may also increase. 

Increased demand for rental housing 

during peak construction could 

disproportionately affect low-income 

populations. However, according to the 

latest census information, there were 

over 46,000 vacant housing units in the 

50-mile radius of BLN, including over 

2500 vacant housing units in Jackson 

County. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

EA, there would be no 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income 

populations from the reinstatement of 

the CPs and completing the construction 

of the BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Impacts on Water Resources 

Water resource impacts due to 

reinstating BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs 

would be relatively small. Water 

discharges are governed by the plant’s 

current National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit and 

waste streams controlled by the current 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) permit; these permits 

remain active. TVA would continue to 

purchase drinking water from the City 

of Hollywood, Alabama, which is a 

community public water system that is 

regulated by the State of Alabama. TVA 

would continue to route waste water 

from the BLN Units 1 and 2 to the 

Hollywood Sewer System. 

By letter dated November 24, 2008, 

TVA confirmed that almost all 

environmental disturbances related to 

construction have already occurred, and 

that any impacts to natural resources, 

including water resources, would 

remain bounded by its assessment in the 

1974 FES. 

Based on the information provided, 

the staff expects that there would be 

little or no impact to aquatic resources 

because the majority of construction 

activities have already been completed. 

Impacts on Air Quality 

Main sources for the potential impacts 

on air quality due to reinstatement of 

the CPs for BLN would be fugitive dust 

from construction activities, associated 

with the project and exhaust emissions 

from the motorized equipment and 

vehicles of workers. The 1990 Clean Air 

Act amendments include a provision 

that no Federal agency shall support any 

activity that does not conform to a state 

implementation plan designed to 

achieve the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for criteria pollutants 

(sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate 

matter less than 10 in diameter). On 

November 30, 1993, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

issued a final rule (58 FR 63214) 

implementing the new statutory 

requirements, effective January 31, 

1994. The final rule requires that 

Federal agencies prepare a written 

conformity analysis and determination 

for each pollutant where the total of 

direct and indirect emissions caused by 

proposed federal action 1 would exceed 

established threshold emission levels in 

a nonattainment 2 or maintenance area.3

Construction activities are known to 

cause localized temporary increases in 

atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen 

oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur 

dioxide, volatile organic compounds, 

ammonia and particulate matter PM10

and PM2.5 as a result of exhaust 

emissions of worker’s vehicles, diesel 

generators, and construction equipment. 

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, 

Federal agencies are prohibited from 

issuing a license for any activity that 

does not conform to an applicable 

implementation plan (40 CFR Parts 51 

and 93). Since the plant is located in a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, BLN must 

show conformity to applicable Alabama 

State Implementation Plans by 

analyzing vehicles exhaust emissions 

(using an approved EPA model) that 

will occur during construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2. 

During potential construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2, some ground-clearing, 

grading, excavation, and movement of 

materials and machinery are expected to 

occur. Ground-clearing, grading, and 

excavation activities will raise dust, as 

will the movement of materials and 

machinery. Fugitive dust may also rise 

from cleared areas during windy 

periods. If any open burning is planned 

then the applicable permits would need 

to be obtained from the Air Division of 

the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management. Normally, 

construction activities take place for a 

limited duration; if reinstated, the 

expiration completion date for BLN Unit 

1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the 

expiration completion date for BLN Unit 

2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in 

an NRC Order dated March 4, 2003. Any 

impacts on air quality that might occur 

would be temporary. 

Because the NRC staff expects that 

any potential construction activities at 

BLN Units 1 and 2 would conform to 

the Alabama Implementation plans, the 

NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 

construction activities on air quality 

would then be low. For such activities, 

the NRC staff notes a variety of 

mitigation measures, such as wetting of 

unpaved roads and construction areas 

during dry periods and seeding or 

mulching bare areas, inspection and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

maintenance of the gasoline or diesel 

fuel fired construction equipment to 

prevent excessive exhaust emissions 

and shift changes for workforce to 

reduce the number of vehicles on the 

road at any given time, that could 

mitigate potential air quality impacts 

resulting from the potential 

reinstatement and construction 

completion at BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

In a TVA letter dated September 25, 

2008, TVA indicates that TVA proposes 

‘‘no new ground disturbance,’’ possibly 

a small amount of earthwork adjacent to 

existing building to support air 

compressors, and possibly 

‘‘reintroduction’’ of small amounts of 

lubricating oil. The TVA letter dated 

September 25, 2008, does not indicate 

that the reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction would result in any 

activities involving transmission lines, 

such as maintenance, nor does it 

indicate any on-site activities other than 

those listed above. The activities 

described in the TVA letter, would be of 

such limited geographic extent and of 

such removal from aquatic habitats that 

the NRC staff expects that there would 

be little to no impact to aquatic 

resources. 

By letter dated November 24, 2008, 

TVA provided additional information to 

confirm that most site disturbance has 

already occurred, and that any impacts 

to natural resources, including aquatic 

resources, would remain bounded by 

the impacts discussed in the 1974 FES. 

Based on the information provided, 

the NRC staff expects that there would 

be little to no impact to aquatic 

resources based on the limited 

geographic extent and area affected. 

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic 

Species 

By letter dated November 24, 2008, 

TVA updated the list of threatened or 

endangered species and concluded that 

except for the gray bat, none of the 

federally listed species are known to 

occur at or adjacent to the BLN site. 

Although threatened and endangered 

aquatic species are listed as occurring in 

Jackson County, the NRC staff 

confirmed with the Alabama State 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources (DCNR) that there were no 

aquatic species listed as threatened or 

endangered in the immediate vicinity of 

BLN. 

Impacts on Terrestrial Biota 

Since most of the construction has 

been completed, limited impacts may 

occur to terrestrial biota related to the 

potential realignment by 1200 feet (370 

meters) of the southern entrance to the 

plant and by the excavation of borrow 

pits in a wooded area east of the existing 

main power plant buildings. Reinstating 

the CPs and completing construction of 

the BLN Units 1 and 2 would remain 

within the scope of the 1974 FES, 

assuming that TVA implements the 

preconstruction and construction 

monitoring program for both aquatic 

and terrestrial resources as described in 

the 1974 FES. This would also cover 

potential impacts to terrestrial biota 

from transmission line right-of-way 

maintenance. The 1974 FES considered 

all potential impacts associated with the 

transmission line and noted that TVA’s 

transmission line maintenance and 

construction methods, particularly 

overspray during herbicide applications, 

had resulted in damage to trees located 

outside of the transmission line 

corridor. However, current best 

management practices (BMPs) employed 

by most industries today would mitigate 

such environmental impacts from 

pesticide or herbicide applications. 

Assuming that these practices for 

transmission line right-of-way would be 

in place if the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 

2 were reinstated, the NRC staff 

anticipates little to no impact on 

terrestrial biota, including wetland 

areas. By letter dated November 24, 

2008, TVA confirmed that impacts to 

terrestrial resources would remain 

bounded by the assessment in the 1974 

FES. 

Endangered Terrestrial Species 

In a NRC EA dated January 24, 2003 

(68 FR 3571), for extension of expiration 

dates of the BLN CPs, the NRC staff 

found that the endangered Gray Bat 

(Myotis grisescens) is the only species 

on the Federal list of endangered 

species known to occur in the vicinity 

of the Bellefonte site or within its 

transmission line corridors. The Gray 

Bat uses the sloughs and main channel 

of the Tennessee River near the BLN site 

to forage according to the NRC EA, 

dated January 24, 2003, and an Alabama 

State DCNR letter, dated October 15, 

2008. The NRC EA, dated January 24, 

2003, found that construction activities 

planned at that time would not be 

expected to cause any adverse impacts 

to the Grey Bat or its habitat. 

There is a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) nest located less than 2 

miles (3 kilometers) northeast of the 

BLN site, but the Bald Eagle was 

recently removed from the Federal list 

of threatened and endangered species. 

However, the Bald Eagle is still 

protected under the Federal Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

According to the NRC EA, dated 

January 24, 2003, population levels of 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have been 

increasing on Guntersville Lake, and 

several nests have been observed in the 

vicinity of Coon and Crow Creeks. 

Ospreys would use shoreline habitats 

fronting the BLN site for foraging. While 

not a species listed as threatened or 

endangered, the Osprey is protected 

along with the Bald Eagle under the 

Alabama State Nongame Species 

Regulation according to Alabama State 

DCNR letter, dated October 15, 2008. 

Based on this information, and TVA’s 

response to the RAI dated November 24, 

2008, the NRC staff concludes that 

resumption of construction activities at 

the BLN site are not likely to have any 

significant adverse effect on any listed 

species or other species mentioned 

above, because the majority of ground or 

river disturbance from construction 

activities have already been completed. 

Nonradiological Impacts Summary 

Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN 

Units 1 and 2 would not result in a 

significant change in nonradiological 

impacts in the areas of land use, water 

use, waste discharges, terrestrial and 

aquatic biota, transmission facility 

operation, social and economic factors, 

and environmental justice related to 

resumption of construction operations 

at the power plants. No other 

nonradiological impacts were identified 

or would be expected. Table 1 

summarizes the nonradiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 

1 and 2. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Land use .................................................. No impact to land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of BLN. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources ... No impact to historic and archaeological resources in the vicinity of BLN. 

Socioeconomics ....................................... Workforce required to complete BLN could have a profound effect on the availability of public services and rental housing in the vicinity of the plant. TVA is committed to monitoring the situation and 

to working with local and state officials to mitigate any unacceptable adverse socioeconomic conditions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9313 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Environmental Justice .............................. There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of BLN. 

Water Use ................................................ Water use during completion of construction would be relatively minor. No changes from previous impact evaluations are expected. 

Air Quality ................................................ Temporary impacts from fugitive dust related to construction and vehicle emissions related to construction workers traveling to and from BLN. 

Aquatic Resources ................................... Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed. 

Terrestrial Biota ........................................ Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed. 

Threatened and Endangered Species ..... Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed. 

Transmission Facilities ............................. Little to no impact to terrestrial and aquatic resources if current BMPs are incorporated into management plan. 

Radiological Impacts 

Radioactive Effluent and Solid Waste 

Impacts 

Nuclear power plants use waste 

treatment systems designed to collect, 

process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, 

and solid wastes that might contain 

radioactive material in a safe and 

controlled manner such that discharges 

are in accordance with the requirements 

of Title 10 of 10 CFR Part 20, 

‘‘Standards for Protection Against 

Radiation’’, and 10 CFR Part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities’’, Appendix I. 

Since construction activities will not 

involve any radioactive effluent and 

solid waste, the staff determined that 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 

would not result in any radiological 

effluent and solid waste since the BLN 

Units 1 and 2 would not be operating. 

Disposal of essentially all of the 

hazardous chemicals used at nuclear 

power plants is also regulated by RCRA 

or NPDES permits. 

Occupational Radiation Doses 

Occupational exposures to plant 

workers conducting activities involving 

radioactively contaminated systems or 

working in radiation areas can be 

exposed to radiation. However, 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction activities will not involve 

any radioactive material; the NRC staff 

determined that occupational doses can 

be maintained within the limits of 10 

CFR Part 20 for the reinstatement of the 

CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 

and 2. 

Public Radiation Doses 

Since construction activities will not 

involve any radioactive material, the 

staff determined that public radiation 

doses can be maintained within the 

limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for the 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Postulated Accident Doses 

Since construction activities will not 

involve operation of BLN Units 1 and 2, 

the staff determined that there will be 

no postulated accident doses for the 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation 

Impacts 

Since construction activities will not 

involve operation of BLN Units 1 and 2, 

the staff determined that there would be 

no environmental impact of the fuel 

cycle and transportation of fuels and 

wastes for the reinstatement of the CPs 

and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Radiological Impacts Summary 

The proposed reinstatement of the 

CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 

and 2 would not result in an impact 

associated with radiological effluent and 

solid waste, or occupational and public 

radiation exposure, or the uranium fuel 

cycle and transportation. In addition, 

TVA confirmed in its response to the 

RAI dated November 24, 2008, that 

there are no changes or updates related 

to radiological impacts, beyond those 

assessed in the 1974 FES, associated 

with the proposed reinstatement of the 

CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 

and 2. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 

that there are no adverse impacts 

associated with the proposed 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

Table 2 summarizes the radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Occupational Radiation Doses ....................................................................................................................................... No adverse impacts. 

Public Radiation Doses .................................................................................................................................................. No adverse impacts. 

Postulated Accident Doses ............................................................................................................................................. No adverse impacts. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................................... No adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

A cumulative impact is defined in 

Council of Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) as ‘‘an 

impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions.’’ The 

NRC staff has considered past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in this review for cumulative 

impacts on the environment. Should 

TVA receive approval by the NRC and 

decide to construct one or two new 

nuclear power plant units at the 

Bellefonte site (BLN Unit 1 and/or Unit 

2), the cumulative impact would result 

from construction activities in the 

immediate vicinity of the site. 

The NRC staff has conducted a review 

of past, present, and the foreseeable 

future action of reinstatement of the CPs 

and construction for BLN Unit 1 and 2. 

The NRC staff determined runoff from 

the land area around the main 

construction site drains into an 

unnamed tributary, wetland, and the 

intake. Topographical flow gradient is 

following the natural elevation not 

planned for land excavation or 

disturbance. Cumulative impacts of 

normal construction of the proposed 

facilities for BLN Units 1 and 2 were 

evaluated for water resources, air 

quality, health and safety, waste 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

generation, resource use, and 

environmental justice including 

cumulative impacts for water quality, 

geologic resources, ecological resources, 

aesthetic resources. These were 

explicitly addressed and the NRC staff 

notes direct and indirect impacts to 

these resources are expected to be 

negligible. Cumulative impacts from 

proposed facility construction 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction activities are not expected 

to be significant. In addition, the 

cumulative impacts of the proposed 

facilities to land development, 

electricity usage, and water usage would 

be quite small. 

If construction resumes, TVA plans to 

eventually move (re-route) the first half 

mile of the south entrance road such 

that it would still join Jackson County 

Highway 33, but to an intersection that 

is about 1200 feet east of the current 

connection point. This change would 

improve traffic visibility and, thereby, 

increase commuter safety. Some new 

ground would be disturbed for this road 

but there are no associated significant 

environmental impacts. 

If construction resumes, some new 

backfill borrow pits may be required to 

obtain clay. These would likely be made 

in undisturbed ground east of the main 

site power plant buildings. The topsoil 

would be removed temporarily and 

replaced to restore the sites after clay 

removal. Tree cover would be removed 

in this process. 

Meteorological monitoring 

requirements have changed, which 

might necessitate construction of a new 

environmental data station. This new 

facility could possibly be sited on 

undisturbed soil. 

Construction of the startup and 

recirculation equipment building for 

Unit 2 has not been initiated; however, 

the site for this building is disturbed 

ground very close to the south side of 

the Unit 2 auxiliary building. Other 

potential construction activities on 

disturbed ground include increasing the 

size of the construction and 

administration building (CAB); 

additional fire protection tanks by the 

CAB; additional waste tanks adjacent to 

the Unit 1 reactor building; and 

completion of the auxiliary feedwater 

pipe trench near the Unit 2 reactor 

building. The power stores building 

may be enlarged, and new plant security 

requirements may necessitate changes to 

the gatehouse. 

If the CPs are reinstated, the 

expiration completion date for BLN Unit 

1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the 

expiration completion date for BLN Unit 

2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in 

a NRC Order dated March 4, 2003. 

Therefore, it is anticipated that the 

potential cumulative impacts from 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 

would be small and no mitigation 

would be required. 

One of the considered actions 

involves an application to build two 

new nuclear units at the Bellefonte site 

(BLN Units 3 and 4). By letter dated 

October 30, 2007, TVA submitted its 

application for a Combined License 

(COL) for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4; this 

application is currently under review by 

the Office of New Reactors. 

On August 27, 2008, TVA legal 

counsel notified Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel, reviewing the 

matter of BLN 3 and 4, that TVA has 

requested to reinstate the CPs for BLN 

Units 1 and 2 in a letter dated August 

26, 2008. 

At this juncture, the TVA request that 

the NRC reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 

1 and 2 does not constitute a ‘‘proposal’’ 

that is interdependent with the BLN 

Units 3 and 4 COL application that is 

before the agency. The TVA request to 

reinstate the CP for BLN Units 1 and 2 

fails to constitute a ‘‘proposal’’ of the 

type that would trigger a NEPA 

cumulative impact analysis regarding 

Units 1 and 2 in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis for proposed BLN Units 3 and 

4. If construction activities resume for 

BLN Units 1 and 2, TVA would need to 

assess the BLN Units 1 and 2 

construction impacts relative to BLN 

Units 3 and 4. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

There are four possibilities for 

reinstatement of the CPs and 

construction: (1) Both BLN Units 1 and 

2 (the proposed action, which bounds 

possibilities 2 and 3), (2) BLN Unit 1 

only, (3) BLN Unit 2 only, and (4) 

neither BLN Unit 1 or Unit 2. 

A possible alternative to the proposed 

action of reinstatement of the CPs for 

BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to reinstate 

only one CP; this alternative is bounded 

by the proposed action. 

Another possible alternative to the 

proposed action of reinstatement of the 

CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to 

deny the request of reinstatement of the 

CPs. This option would not eliminate 

the environmental impacts of 

construction that have already occurred, 

and would only limit the additional 

construction that has been determined 

to have little to no impact on aquatic 

and terrestrial resources including 

endangered species, to hydrology, 

archaeology, land use, and transmission 

line maintenance, and temporary air 

impacts from fugitive dust and 

emissions from construction workers 

traveling to and from the site. If the 

request was denied, there would be no 

adverse socioeconomic impacts; there 

could be an increase in the availability 

of public services and rental housing in 

the vicinity of the plant. If the request 

was denied, there would be no adverse 

impacts to environmental justice; 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 

completing the construction of BLN 

Units 1 and 2. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

This action does not involve the use 

of any resources not previously 

considered in the original FES for 

construction. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on October 15, 2008, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Alabama State 

officials, Mr. Keith Hudson and Ms. 

Ashley Peters, of the Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The state 

officials had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the EA, the 

Commission concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

Commission 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 

letters, dated August 16, 2006, 

September 25, 2008, and November 24, 

2008. 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 Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(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. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24 day 

of February 2008. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9315 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

L. Raghavan, 

Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of 

Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–4441 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316; NRC– 

2009–0094] 

Indiana Michigan Power Company; 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 50, Section 36a(a)(2) [10 CFR 

50.36a(a)(2)], for Facility Operating 

License Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74, 

issued to Indiana Michigan Power 

Company (the licensee), for operation of 

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 

1 and Unit 2, located in Berrien County. 

Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, 

the NRC is issuing this environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The regulation 10 CFR 50.36(a)(2) 

specifies that the Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report submittal interval must 

not exceed 12 months. By application 

dated October 21, 2008 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession Number 

ML082970187), the licensee proposed 

an amendment to Technical 

Specification 5.6.3 which would change 

the submittal date from ‘‘within 90 days 

of January 1 of each year’’ (i.e., prior to 

April 1, 2009) to ‘‘prior to May 1 of each 

year.’’ 

In the October 21, 2008, application, 

the licensee also requested a one-time 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.36a(a)(2) to support the 

implementation of the proposed 

amendment which results in the 2008 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report 

submittal exceeding the 12-month 

requirement. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is required to 

support the implementation of the 

proposed amendment to Technical 

Specification 5.6.3. This amendment 

eliminates an undue administrative 

burden by extending the required 

submittal date for the Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report one additional 

month. As specified in 10 CFR 

50.36a(a)(2), the interval between 

submittals must not exceed 12 months. 

A one-time exemption is required 

because the proposed amendment 

would result in the 2008 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report submittal 

exceeding the 12-month requirement. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that there are no 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed exemption. The details of 

the 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. 

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 a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

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 action does not involve the use of 

any different resources other than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for the Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

dated August 1973, and the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of the Donald C. Cook 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG– 

1437, Supplement 20), dated May 2005. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

On February 9, 2009, the staff 

consulted with the Michigan State 

official, Mr. Ken Yale, of the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

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 October 21, 2008. Documents may 

be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 

the NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the 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 24th day 

of February 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Terry A. Beltz, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–4438 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of March 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 

April 6, 2009. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES