6224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 

public. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of radiological impacts 

are expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of the 

proposed exemption. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. In addition, as discussed above, 

in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR 

Part 73, the Commission prepared an 

environmental assessment and 

published a finding of no significant 

impact (74 FR 13967). 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will 

be provided in the exemption that will 

be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption to the 

regulation, if granted. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

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

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. If the proposed action was 

denied, the licensee would have to 

comply with the March 31, 2010, 

implementation date. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

exemption and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement (FES) for the HCGS, NUREG– 

1074, dated December 1984, or the FES 

for Salem dated April 1973. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on January 4, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the New Jersey State 

officials, Mr. Jerry Humphreys (for 

HCGS) and Mr. Elliot Rosenfeld (for 

Salem) of the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State officials 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 November 3, 2009 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML093100222), as supplemented by 

letter dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093640062). These 

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 O– 

1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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. 

Note, the above letters contain 

enclosures with redacted versions of 

safeguards information that is not 

available to the public. Another letter 

from the licensee dated November 20, 

2009, also contains safeguards 

information and, accordingly, is not 

available to the public. 

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 29th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Richard B. Ennis, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2656 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–263; NRC–2010–0045] 

Northern States Power Company of 

Minnesota; Monticello Nuclear 

Generating Plant Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an Exemption, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the 

implementation date of certain new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Facility Operating 

License No. DPR–22, issued to Northern 

States Power Company of Minnesota 

(NSPM) for operation of Monticello 

Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) 

located in Wright County, Minnesota. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

prepared an environmental assessment 

documenting its finding. The NRC 

concluded that the proposed actions 

will have no significant environmental 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

MNGP from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for two new requirements of 10 CFR 

part 73. Specifically, MNGP would be 

granted an exemption from being in full 

compliance with certain new 

requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010, deadline. NSPM 

has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of June 

30, 2011, approximately 15 months 

beyond the date required by 10 CFR part 

73. The proposed action, an extension of 

the schedule for completion of certain 

actions required by the revised 10 CFR 

part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the MNGP site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 3, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to perform the required upgrades to 

the MNGP security system due to 

impediments to construction such as 

planned refueling outages and winter 

weather conditions. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 6225 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The NRC staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

extend the implementation deadline 

would not significantly affect plant 

safety and would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the probability of an 

accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those previously analyzed in the 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact made by the 

Commission in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73 as discussed 

in a Federal Register notice dated 

March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13967). There 

will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that affect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

public. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of radiological impacts 

are expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of the 

proposed exemption. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. In addition, in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the 

Commission prepared an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact [Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)]. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will 

be provided in the exemption, if 

granted. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

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

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. If the proposed action were 

denied, the licensee would have to 

comply with the March 31, 2010, 

implementation deadline. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

exemption and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement for MNGP in November 1972, 

as updated by Environmental Impact 

Statement, Supplement 26, dated 

August 2006 (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 26, associated with 

renewing the operating license for 

MNGP for an additional 20 years). 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on December 17, 2009, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Minnesota State 

official 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 redacted 

version of the licensee’s letter dated 

November 3, 2009; the unredacted 

version contains safeguards information 

and, accordingly, is not available to the 

public. The redacted version, dated 

December 15, 2009 (Accession No. 

ML100190133) 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 O– 

1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the Agencywide 

Document 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 29th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Peter S. Tam, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2668 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306; NRC– 

2010–0046] 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota; Prairie Island Nuclear 

Generating 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, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) § 73.5, ‘‘Specific 

exemptions,’’ from the implementation 

date for certain new requirements of 10 

CFR part 73, ‘‘Physical protection of 

plants and materials,’’ for Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–42 and 

DPR–60, issued to Northern States 

Power Company—Minnesota (NSPM, 

the licensee), for operation of the Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2 (PINGP), located in Goodhue 

County, Minnesota. In accordance with 

10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an 

environmental assessment documenting 

its finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed actions will have no 

significant environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

PINGP from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for several new requirements of 10 CFR 

part 73. Specifically, PINGP would be 

granted an exemption from being in full 

compliance with certain new 

requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010 deadline. NSPM 

has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of June 

30, 2011, approximately 15 months 

beyond the date required by 10 CFR part 

73. The proposed action, an extension of 

the schedule for completion of certain 

actions required by the revised 10 CFR 

part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the PINGP site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 5, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 30, 2009 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES