Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 6223 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Application For a License To Export 

High-Enriched Uranium 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(c) ‘‘Public 

notice of receipt of an application,’’ 

please take notice that the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission has received the 

following request for an export license. 

Copies of the request are available 

electronically through ADAMS and can 

be accessed through the Public 

Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ 

index.html at the NRC Homepage. 

A request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene may be filed within 

30 days after publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. Any request for 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

shall be served by the requestor or 

petitioner upon the applicant, the Office 

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, 

U.S. Department of State, Washington, 

DC 20520. 

A request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene may be filed with the 

NRC electronically in accordance with 

NRC’s E-Filing rule promulgated in 

August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28, 

2007). Information about filing 

electronically is available on timely 

electronic filing, at least five days prior 

to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ 

requestor should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by 

calling (301) 415–1677, to request a 

digital ID certificate and allow for the 

creation of an electronic docket. 

In addition to a request for hearing or 

petition for leave to intervene, written 

comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 

110.81, should be submitted within 

thirty (30) days after publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register to Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications. 

The information concerning this 

application follows. 

NRC EXPORT LICENSE APPLICATION

Name of applicant, date of 

application, date received, application No., docket No. 

Description of material 

End use Recipient county 

Material type Total quantity 

DOE/NNSA–Y–12 National 

Security Complex December 21, 2009, December 

28, 2009, XSNM3623, 

11005844.

High-Enriched Uranium 

(93.35%).

17.5 kilograms uranium (16.3 

kilograms U–235).

To fabricate targets for irradiation in the National Research Universal (NRU) 

Reactor to produce medical isotopes.

Canada. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated this 2nd day of February 2010, at 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Stephen Dembek, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of 

International Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2657 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–272, 50–311 and 50–354; 

NRC–2010–0043] 

PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek 

Generating Station and Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 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) Section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the 

implementation date for certain 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–57, DPR–70, and 

DPR–75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC 

(PSEG, the licensee), for operation of the 

Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) 

and the Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem), 

located in Salem County, New Jersey. 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 

HCGS and Salem from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for several new requirements of 10 CFR 

part 73. Specifically, HCGS and Salem 

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. 

PSEG has proposed an alternate full 

compliance implementation date of 

December 17, 2010, approximately 81⁄2

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 site for 

HCGS and Salem. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

November 3, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 20, and 

December 22, 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 combined HCGS-Salem security 

system due to the significant number of 

engineering design packages, 

procurement needs, and installation 

activities. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

extend the implementation deadline 

would not significantly affect plant 

safety and would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the probability of an 

accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those previously analyzed in the 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact made by the 

Commission in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, as 

discussed in a Federal Register notice 

dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13967). 

There will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that affect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

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