[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28481-28482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; NRC-2011-0107]
Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric 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) 26.9, ``Specific exemptions,'' from paragraphs (c)
and (d) of 10 CFR 26.205, ``Work hours,'' for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR 71 and DPR-62, issued to Carolina Power & Light
Company (the licensee), for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification
of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental
assessments,'' the NRC performed an environmental assessment and
concluded that the proposed action will have no significant
environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would consider approval of an exemption for
BSEP, Units 1 and 2 from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 26,
``Fitness for duty programs.'' Specifically, the licensee requested
approval of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c),
``Work hours scheduling,'' and (d), ``Work hour controls,'' during
declaration of severe weather conditions involving tropical storm or
hurricane force winds. The licensee in its request stated that during
these conditions, adherence to all work hour control requirements could
impede the ability to respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the
plant reaches and maintains a safe and secure status.
The licensee specifically stated that the exemption would only
apply to severe weather conditions where tropical storm or hurricane
force winds are predicted onsite; requiring the sequestering of the
BSEP personnel.
The proposed exemption will allow the licensee to not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d), during the period of time
defined by the entry condition until the exit condition. The licensee
needs the proposed exemption to support effective response to severe
weather conditions when travel to and from the BSEP site may not be
safe or even possible. During these times, the licensee sequesters
sufficient individuals, including covered workers, to staff two 12-hour
shifts to maintain the safe and secure operation of the facility.
The exemption would only apply to individuals designated as the
storm crew who perform duties specified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through
(a)(5), namely, (1) Operating or onsite directing of the operation of
structures, systems and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed
evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and
safety; (2) performing health physics or chemistry duties required as a
member of the onsite emergency response organization minimum shift
complement; (3) performing the duties of a fire brigade member who is
responsible for understanding the effects of fire and fire suppressants
on safe shutdown capability; (4) performing maintenance or onsite
directing of the maintenance of SSCs that a risk-informed evaluation
process has shown to be significant to public health and safety; and
(5) performing security duties as an armed security force officer,
alarm station operator, response team leader, or watchperson. When
storm crew sequestering exit conditions are met, full compliance with
10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) will be required.
Since 10 CFR 26.207(d), ``Plant emergencies,'' already provides an
exception for the time period associated with a declared emergency, the
exemption requested per 10 CFR 26.9 only applies to the applicable time
periods prior to and following the 10 CFR 26.207(d) exception,
requiring the sequestering storm crew at BSEP, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed action does not involve any physical changes to the
reactor, fuel, plant, structures, support structures, water, or land at
the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 16, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated
January 27, March 7, and April 13, 2011.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed because the licensee is unable to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during declarations
of severe weather conditions that could result due to prevailing
tropical storm or hurricane force winds impacting the facility.
Compliance with work hour control requirements could impede the
licensee's ability to use whatever staff resources may be necessary to
respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the plant reaches and
maintains a safe and secure status.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its 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, if approved by the NRC, 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 any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water
resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are also no
known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with
such proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental
[[Page 28482]]
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 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 fatigue rules in 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d). This would cause unnecessary burden on the licensee, without a
significant benefit in environmental impacts. 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 the BSEP
dated January 1976, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Supplement 25, dated
March 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML060900480).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 16, 2011, the NRC
staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. William Lee
Cox of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ``Finding of No Significant Impact,'' and
on the basis of the above 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 December 16, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103630405), as supplemented by letters dated January 27, March 7, and
April 13, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110730275, ML110400193, and
ML11110A021). 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. 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 [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-12044 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P