Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61225 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jessie Quichocho, 

Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing 

Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24809 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–397; NRC–2010–0029] 

Energy Northwest; Columbia 

Generating Station Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

changes to the Emergency Plan, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions 

of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–21, issued 

to Energy Northwest (EN, 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 revise the 

Emergency Plan to support U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) nonintrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities within the 

618–11 High-Level Waste Burial Ground 

(618–11). The 618–11 site is an 8-acre 

parcel located on DOE property that is 

directly adjacent to land leased by EN 

from the DOE, and is located wholly 

within CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary. 

The site was used from 1962 through 

1967 and contains low- to high-activity 

waste, fission products, some 

plutonium-contaminated waste, and 

toxicological waste. The DOE intends to 

remediate 618–11 and other waste 

burial ground locations on the Hanford 

Site. The licensee proposes to modify 

the Emergency Plan to address interagency coordination, cooperation, and 

responsibilities for potential 618–11 site 

events and to add specific emergency 

action level criteria and actions 

associated with any potential toxic, 

flammable, or radioactive material 

release from an abnormal event at the 

618–11 site that could pose a threat to 

the health and safety of licensee staff or 

visitors within the CGS exclusion area. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

April 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML101250340), as supplemented by 

letter dated August 9, 2010 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102300537). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The 618–11 site is an 8-acre parcel 

located on DOE property that is directly 

adjacent to land leased by EN from the 

DOE, and is located wholly within 

CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary. The 

site was used from 1962 through 1967 

and contains low- to high-activity waste, 

fission products, some plutoniumcontaminated waste, and toxicological 

waste. The Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order between 

the DOE, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the State of 

Washington, is the legal document that 

binds DOE to milestones to remediate 

the 618–11 site, among other waste 

burial ground locations, on the Hanford 

Site. The non-intrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities will obtain 

data and information necessary for 

planning future intrusive activities and 

remediation strategies. The licensee 

proposes to modify the Emergency Plan 

to address inter-agency coordination, 

cooperation, and responsibilities for 

potential 618–11 site events during the 

DOE’s non-intrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities and to add 

specific emergency action level criteria 

and actions associated with any 

potential toxic, flammable, or 

radioactive material release from an 

abnormal event at the 618–11 site that 

could pose a threat to the health and 

safety of licensee staff or visitors within 

the CGS exclusion area. 

The NRC has completed its evaluation 

of the proposed action and concludes 

that the proposed changes to the CGS 

Emergency Plan meet the standards of 

10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of 

Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

licensee will take adequate protective 

measures in a radiological emergency. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided with the license amendment 

that will be issued to the licensee 

approving the changes to the Emergency 

Plan. 

In its application, the licensee also 

requested changes to the CGS Final 

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The 

NRC staff’s determination regarding the 

proposed changes to the FSAR will be 

provided by separate correspondence. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed Emergency Plan changes to 

CGS. The staff has concluded that the 

changes would not significantly affect 

plant safety and would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the 

probability of an accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result in 

an increased radiological hazard beyond 

those previously analyzed in the Final 

Safety Analysis Report. There will be no 

change to radioactive effluents that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. No 

changes will be made to plant buildings 

or the site property. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of 

radiological impacts are expected as a 

result of the proposed changes. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

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 than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for CGS dated 

December 1981. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on September 21, 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 April 28, 2010, as supplemented 

by letter dated August 9, 2010. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible electronically 

from the ADAMS Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 

do not have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301– 

415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day 

of September 2010. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Carl F. Lyon, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24811 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0314; Docket Nos. 50–313 and 

50–368] 

Exemption; Entergy Operations, Inc.; 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 

1.0 Background 

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the 

licensee) is the holder of Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–51 and 

NPF–6, which authorize operation of 

the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 

2 (ANO–1 and ANO–2), respectively. 

The licenses provide, among other 

things, that the facility is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. 

The facility consists of two 

pressurized-water reactors located in 

Pope County, Arkansas. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.36a, 

paragraph (a)(2) (10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2)) 

requires each licensee to ‘‘submit a 

report to the Commission annually that 

specifies the quantity of each of the 

principal radionuclides released to 

unrestricted areas in liquid and in 

gaseous effluents during the previous 12 

months, including any other 

information as may be required by the 

Commission to estimate maximum 

potential annual radiation doses to the 

public resulting from effluent releases. 

The report must be submitted as 

specified in § 50.4, and the time 

between submission of the reports must 

be no longer than 12 months. If 

quantities of radioactive materials 

released during the reporting period are 

significantly above design objectives, 

the report must cover this specifically.’’ 

The licensee submitted its Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report for the Calendar 

Year 2009 on February 25, 2010. 

The ANO–1 Technical Specification 

(TS) 5.5.1 and ANO–2 TS 6.5.1 require 

the Radioactive Effluent Release Report, 

covering the operation of each unit in 

the previous year, to be submitted prior 

to May 1 of each year in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.36a. Originally, both 

ANO–1 and ANO–2 TSs required this 

report be submitted either prior to 

March 1 or within 60 days of January 1 

of each year. Later, during the ANO–1 

TS conversion, the submittal date for 

ANO–1 became May 1. The licensee 

continued to send one submittal for the 

site as allowed by the TSs. The licensee 

also continued to submit the report in 

accordance with the March 1 deadline. 

Entergy proposed to reorganize Section 

6 of the ANO–2 TS in 2003. The 

proposed changes were to make the 

ANO–2 requirements consistent with 

the ANO–1 TS requirements. These 

changes were subsequently approved by 

the NRC and the submittal date became 

‘‘prior to May 1’’ of each year for both 

units. However, while the submittal 

dates were consistent again between the 

ANO–1 and ANO–2 TSs, the 12-month 

interval between submittals was not 

addressed. The actual submittal date 

remained at the end of February of each 

year because, the TS changes 

notwithstanding, the time between 

report submittals cannot be more than 

12 months. As a result, a period of only 

2 months is available to prepare and 

submit the report. With ANO continuing 

to send one submittal for the site, this 

presents an undue administrative 

burden on ANO personnel due to the 

compressed schedule for data 

collection, report preparation, and 

internal review following the closure of 

the reporting period. 

Therefore, the licensee has requested 

a one-time exemption from the 12- 

month reporting criteria specified in 10 

CFR 50.36a(a)(2) for its submittal of the 

calendar year 2010 Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report. The proposed 

exemption allows an additional 2 

months for these activities to match the 

current submittal date stated in the TSs. 

In summary, the exemption does not 

affect the information required to be 

submitted or the time period the report 

covers, only the date the report is 

submitted. Subsequent submittals, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2), will 

follow the 12-month reporting criteria. 

The application for exemption, dated 

March 18, 2010, is publicly available in 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) under 

ADAMS Accession No. ML100780094). 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when 

(1) the exemptions are authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

public health or safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security; and (2) when special 

circumstances are present. These 

circumstances include the special 

circumstances that would provide only 

temporary relief from the applicable 

regulation and the licensee or applicant 

has made good faith efforts to comply 

with the regulation. 

Authorized by Law 

This exemption would allow the 

licensee to submit the 2010 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report prior to May 1, 

2011, which would exceed the report 

submittal requirement of no longer than 

12 months specified in 10 CFR 

50.36a(a)(2). As stated above, 10 CFR 

50.12 allows the NRC to grant 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 50. The NRC staff has 

determined that granting of the 

licensee’s proposed exemption will not 

result in a violation of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the 

Commission’s regulations. Therefore, 

the exemption is authorized by law. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES