Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2


Federal Register: March 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 56)


Page 14206-14207

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Docket Nos. 50-266 And 50-301; NRC-2010-0123

FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach 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, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' from the implementation date for one new requirement of 10 CFR Part 73,

``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Renewed Facility

Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point

Beach, LLC (FPLE, the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), located in Manitowoc County,

Wisconsin. 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 exempt PBNP from the required implementation date of March 31, 2010, for one new requirement of 10

CFR Part 73. Specifically, PBNP would be granted an exemption from being in full compliance with a new requirement contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. FPLE has proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of May 28, 2010, approximately 2 months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The proposed action, an extension of the schedule for completion of one action required by the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures,

[Page 14207

support structures, water, or land at the PBNP site.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 26, 2010, which was superseded by letter dated March 11, 2010.

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 PBNP security system due to unforeseen circumstances such as adverse weather, material delivery and testing constraints.

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 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 Magnuson-Steven'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 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 ``no-action'' 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 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 PBNP, dated

May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, ``Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2],'' dated August 2005.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on March 12, 2010, the NRC staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, 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 March 11, 2010. Portions of the document contain security-related information and, accordingly, are not available to the public. Other parts of the document 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 document 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 17th day of March, 2010.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Justin C. Poole,

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

FR Doc. 2010-6473 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am