80_FR_48113 80 FR 47960 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

80 FR 47960 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 153 (August 10, 2015)

Page Range47960-47964
FR Document2015-19587

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) that would permit the licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee or VY). The licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at VY, which is permanently shutdown and defueled. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an emergency at VY, would be retained. In addition, offsite EP provisions would still exist through State and local government use of a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, ``Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.'' The NRC staff is issuing a final environmental assessment (EA) and final finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemptions.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47960-47964]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19587]



[[Page 47960]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-271; NRC-2015-0111]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; 
issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) that would permit the 
licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee or VY). The 
licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements 
for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency 
plans, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the 
reduced risks at VY, which is permanently shutdown and defueled. 
However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate 
and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an 
emergency at VY, would be retained. In addition, offsite EP provisions 
would still exist through State and local government use of a 
comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process in accordance 
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Comprehensive 
Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, ``Developing and Maintaining Emergency 
Operations Plans.'' The NRC staff is issuing a final environmental 
assessment (EA) and final finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 
associated with the proposed exemptions.

DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on 
August 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0111 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0111. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For 
the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided 
in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email: James.Kim@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    Vermont Yankee is a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power 
plant that is in the process of decommissioning, and is located in 
Windham County, Vermont, 5 miles south of Brattleboro, Vermont. Entergy 
is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for 
VY. Vermont Yankee has been shut down since December 29, 2014, and the 
final removal of fuel from the VY reactor vessel was completed on 
January 12, 2015. By letter dated January 12, 2015, Entergy submitted 
to the NRC a certification of the permanent cessation of power 
operations at VY and the permanent removal of fuel from the VY reactor 
vessel. As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and pursuant 
to section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), VY is no longer authorized to be operated or to have fuel 
placed into its reactor vessel, but the licensee is still authorized to 
possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated nuclear fuel is 
currently stored onsite at VY in a spent fuel pool (SFP) and in an 
independent spent fuel storage installation.
    The licensee has requested exemptions for VY from certain EP 
requirements in 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and 
Utilization Facilities.'' The NRC regulations concerning EP do not 
recognize the reduced risks after a reactor is permanently shut down 
and defueled. As such, a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, 
such as VY, must continue to maintain the same EP requirements as an 
operating power reactor under the existing regulatory requirements. To 
establish a level of EP commensurate with the reduced risks of a 
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, Entergy requires exemptions 
from certain EP regulatory requirements before it can change its 
emergency plans.
    The NRC is considering issuing exemptions from portions of 10 CFR 
50.47, ``Emergency plans,'' and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, ``Emergency 
Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,'' 
to Entergy, which would eliminate the requirements for Entergy to 
maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the 
onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at VY, due to its 
permanently shutdown and defueled status. According to the decision of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Brodsky v. 
NRC associated with a fire protection exemption for Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, and demonstrated public interest in this 
exemption request, particularly by the State of Vermont, on April 30, 
2015 (80 FR 24291), the NRC published a Federal Register notice seeking 
public comment, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, on a draft EA and FONSI 
associated with Entergy's exemption request. Based on the final EA and 
the NRC staff's responses to the comments received on the draft EA, the 
NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the exemption request and is issuing a FONSI.

II. Environmental Assessment

Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt Entergy from meeting certain 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 
50. More specifically, Entergy requested exemptions from: (1) Certain 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency 
response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in 
10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP 
zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 
CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements 
that make up the content of emergency plans. The

[[Page 47961]]

proposed action of granting these exemptions would eliminate the 
requirements for Entergy to maintain formal offsite radiological 
emergency plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of 
the onsite EP activities at VY, based on the reduced risks at the 
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for 
certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite 
response authorities, in the event of an emergency at VY, would be 
retained. Additionally, if necessary, offsite protective actions could 
still be implemented using a CEMP process. A CEMP in this context, also 
referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in 
FEMA's CPG 101. The CPG 101 is the foundation for State, territorial, 
Tribal, and local EP in the United States. It promotes a common 
understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and 
decision making, and helps planners at all levels of government in 
their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats 
emergency plans. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. 
It describes how people and property will be protected; details 
regarding who is responsible for carrying out specific actions; 
identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other 
resources available; and outlines the process by which all actions will 
be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for ``all-
hazards'' planning.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated March 14, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 29, 2014, and October 21, 2014. In its letters dated August 29, 
2014, and October 21, 2014, Entergy provided responses to the NRC 
staff's requests for additional information concerning the proposed 
exemptions.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed for Entergy to revise the VY 
emergency plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled status 
of the facility. The EP requirements currently applicable to VY are for 
an operating power reactor. There are no explicit regulatory provisions 
distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been 
permanently shut down, from those for an operating power reactor. 
Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50 license for VY no longer authorizes 
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the 
reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of 
postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer 
credible.
    In its exemption request, the licensee identified four possible 
radiological accidents at VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled 
condition. These are: (1) A fuel handling accident (FHA); (2) a 
radioactive waste handling accident; (3) a loss of SFP normal cooling 
(i.e., boil off); and (4) an adiabatic heat up of the hottest fuel 
assembly. The NRC staff evaluated these possible radiological 
accidents, as memorialized in the Commission Paper (SECY) 14-0125, 
``Request by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for Exemptions from 
Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,'' dated November 14, 2014. In 
SECY-14-0125, the NRC staff stated that it had verified that Entergy's 
analyses and calculations provided reasonable assurance that if the 
requested exemptions were granted, then: (1) For a design-basis 
accident (DBA), an offsite radiological release will not exceed the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guides 
(PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, as detailed in the EPA ``PAG 
Manual, Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological 
Incidents,'' dated March 2013, which was issued as Draft for Interim 
Use and Public Comment; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond DBA, 
resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to 
initiate appropriate mitigating actions on site and, if a release is 
projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to 
take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and 
safety. The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant 
the exemptions, based on this evaluation in its Staff Requirements 
Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-14-0125, dated March 2, 2015.
    Based on these analyses, the licensee states that complete 
application of the EP rule to VY, in its particular circumstances as a 
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, would not serve the 
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the 
underlying purpose of the rule. Entergy also states that it would incur 
undue costs in the application of operating plant EP requirements for 
the maintenance of an emergency response organization in excess of that 
actually needed to respond to the diminished scope of credible 
accidents for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff concludes that the exemptions, if granted, would not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at 
VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. There would be 
no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be 
released offsite. There would be no significant increase in the amounts 
of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no 
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public 
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water 
resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are no known 
socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the 
proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts associated with 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 NRC staff considered 
the denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' 
alternative). The denial of the proposed action would not result in a 
change to the current environmental impacts. Therefore, the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action 
are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action does not involve the use of any different 
resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental 
Statement for VY, dated July 1972, as supplemented by NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 30, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station,'' Volumes 1 and 2, published in August 2007.

Agencies or Persons Consulted

    Development of this EA and FONSI did not result in consultation.

Discussion of Comments

    At the conclusion of the draft EA and FONSI comment period on June 
1, 2015, the NRC received four submissions containing comments from 
interested

[[Page 47962]]

members of the public and from the State of Vermont. Full text versions 
of the comments can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, by 
searching for Docket NRC-2015-0111 and selecting ``Open Docket 
Folder,'' or at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15138A094, ML15159A183, 
ML15159A184, and ML15159A185, respectively.
    Each comment was carefully reviewed by the NRC staff. Although most 
of the comments were outside the scope of the draft EA and FONSI, which 
deal strictly with the environmental impacts of granting the exemption 
request, the NRC has responded fully to the comments, as shown below.

State of Vermont Comments

    The State of Vermont's comments consisted of two arguments: (1) 
That the NRC did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), by publishing the draft EA after the Commission had approved 
the staff's recommendation to grant the exemption request and (2) that 
the draft EA and FONSI are deficient and inadequate because they do not 
take a hard look at all the potential environmental impacts of the 
proposed action, which Vermont asserts could be significant and, thus, 
require evaluation through an environmental impact statement. The NRC 
staff does not agree with these comments. As an initial matter, the 
comments are outside the scope of the comment opportunity because they 
do not have to do with the environmental impacts of granting Entergy's 
exemption request, but are instead procedural and substantive 
challenges under NEPA, to an NRC granting of the exemption request that 
has not yet occurred. Additionally, both arguments are without merit.
    The Vermont argument that the NRC is not procedurally in compliance 
with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the 
NRC conducted the EA for the exemption request before making any final 
decision on the exemption request. The NRC received the exemption 
request on March 14, 2014. The exemption request seeks exemptions from 
10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. 
The Commission has previously directed, in SRM to SECY-08-0024, 
``Delegation of Commission Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny 
Emergency Plan Changes that Represent a Decrease in Effectiveness,'' 
dated May 19, 2008, that the NRC staff should request Commission 
approval for any reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's 
emergency plan that requires an exemption from the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. Therefore, on November 14, 
2014, the NRC staff sought Commission approval with SECY-14-0125 ``for 
the staff to process and grant, as appropriate'' the exemption request. 
In SECY-14-0125, the NRC staff also explained that it had reviewed 
Entergy's site-specific analyses and calculations and stated that these 
analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the exemption 
request: 1) An offsite radiological release will not exceed the EPA 
PAGs at the site boundary for a DBA and 2) in the unlikely event of a 
beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient 
time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions and, if a release is 
projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to 
take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the health and safety 
of the public. In response, on March 2, 2015, the Commission ``approved 
the staff's recommendation to grant'' the exemption request ``to be 
implemented as stipulated in SECY-14-0125.'' Thus, the NRC staff then 
proceeded to process the exemption request by, in part, conducting an 
EA of the exemption request, the draft of which was published for 
public comment on April 30, 2015. The NRC has now completed its final 
EA and FONSI, but has still yet to approve or deny the exemption 
request. The fact that the Commission had approved an NRC staff 
recommendation to grant the exemption request does not compel the NRC 
staff to grant the exemption request. Therefore, any future approval or 
denial of the exemption request will have necessarily come only after 
the NRC had considered the potential environmental impacts of the 
proposed exemption request, as well as, the public's and the State of 
Vermont's comments on these potential environmental impacts. 
Consequently, Vermont's argument that the NRC has approved the 
exemption request before taking a hard look at its potential 
environmental impacts in contravention of NEPA is without merit.
    The Vermont argument that the NRC is not substantively in 
compliance with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR 
51.30, the EA identifies the proposed action and includes a brief 
discussion of: The need for the proposed action; the alternatives to 
the proposed action; the environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and alternatives; and a list of agencies and persons consulted and 
identification of sources used. With respect to environmental impacts, 
the NRC staff found that the exemption request, if granted, would not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at 
VY, would not significantly change the types or increase the amounts of 
any effluents that may be released offsite, and would not significantly 
increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that granting the exemption request 
would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. The NRC staff based this finding on the permanently 
shutdown and defueled status of VY, combined with the long history of 
technical studies demonstrating that the risk for such facilities is 
very low, and the staff's verification that Entergy's site-specific 
analyses provided reasonable assurance that, even with the granting of 
the exemption request, a DBA will not exceed the EPA PAGs at the 
exclusion area boundary and a beyond-DBA will move slowly enough that 
appropriate onsite mitigating actions may be initiated and, if a 
release is projected to occur, offsite agencies would take protective 
actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and safety. 
Consequently, Vermont's argument that the EA is deficient and 
inadequate is without merit.
    The NRC staff also disagrees with each of Vermont's specific 
arguments as to why it believes that the EA is inadequate. Vermont 
asserts that the granting of the exemption request would have ``direct 
and significant implications for public health and safety,'' but the EA 
explicitly found that granting the exemption request would not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Vermont 
asserts that the situation is unique because there is an elementary 
school directly across the street from VY, but this fact is immaterial 
because the NRC staff found that Entergy had provided reasonable 
assurance that a DBA would not result in radiation exposure greater 
than or equal to 1 rem at the VY boundary and that any beyond-DBA could 
be addressed in a timely manner. Vermont asserts that the EA fails to 
give any consideration to high-burnup fuel in the SFP, but the 
exemption request's DBA analysis, as demonstrated in its reference 6 at 
attachment 4, table 3-2, did indeed consider high-burnup fuel. Vermont 
asserts that the use of an EA is insufficient because Vermont opposes 
the exemption request as do a number of Vermont citizens, but this does 
not impact the staff's determination that the proposed action will not 
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 
Vermont asserts that the risks resulting from any

[[Page 47963]]

granting of the exemption request are uncertain, but technical studies 
spanning from 1975 to 2014 have, in fact, demonstrated the risks of 
storing spent fuel in SFPs to be very low. Vermont asserts that 
precedent advises against the granting of the exemption request, but 
similar exemption requests have been granted for eight previous 
facilities. Vermont asserts that granting the exemption request means 
that State and local officials may no longer receive training regarding 
radiological incidents, but does not address Entergy's continuing 
obligation, per 10 CFR part 50, appendix E.IV.F.1, to make radiological 
orientation training available to local emergency services and law 
enforcement, or, per 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15), to make radiological 
emergency response training available to those called on to assist in 
an emergency. Finally, Vermont asserts that the potential environmental 
impacts from the exemption request should be analyzed in conjunction 
with a prior Entergy termination of the Emergency Response Data System 
at VY, but this earlier action was taken by Entergy, consistent with 
the Commission's regulations and, thus, did not require an 
environmental review. Consequently, the NRC staff disagrees with all of 
Vermont's comments.

Public Comments

    In addition to the Vermont comments, the NRC received three sets of 
public comments on the draft EA. These public comments raised 
substantively similar issues as the Vermont comments and, thus, the NRC 
staff disagrees with them for the same reasons that it disagrees with 
the Vermont comments, as addressed above.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The licensee has proposed exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response 
plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 
50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones 
for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 
50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up 
the content of emergency plans. The proposed action of granting these 
exemptions would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to 
maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, as described in 
44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at VY, 
based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled 
reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to 
communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities following 
declaration of an emergency at VY will be retained and offsite ``all 
hazards'' EP provisions will still exist through State and local 
government use of a CEMP.
    Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the 
proposed action, which is included in Section II of this document, and 
incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of this EA, the 
NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 
has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.

IV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as 
indicated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Document                   ADAMS Accession No./Web link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing and Maintaining Emergency     http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/
 Operations Plans, Comprehensive          divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf
 Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version
 2.0, November 2010.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for           ADAMS Accession No. ML14080A141
 Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,
 March 14, 2014.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for           ADAMS Accession No. ML14246A176
 Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--
 Supplement 1, Vermont Yankee Nuclear
 Power Station, August 29, 2014.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for           ADAMS Accession No. ML14297A159
 Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--
 Supplement 2, Vermont Yankee Nuclear
 Power Station, October 21, 2014.
Protective Action Guides and Planning    http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
 Guidance for Radiological Incidents,     docs/er/pag-manual-interim-
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency     public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf
 Draft for Interim Use and Public
 Comment, March 2013.
SECY-14-0125, ``Request by Entergy       ADAMS Accession No. ML14227A711
 Nuclear Operations, Inc., for
 Exemptions from Certain Emergency
 Planning Requirements,'' November 14,
 2014.
Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-   ADAMS Accession No. ML15061A516
 14-0125, ``Request by Entergy Nuclear
 Operations, Inc., for Exemptions from
 Certain Emergency Planning
 Requirements,'' March 2, 2015.
Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-   ADAMS Accession No. ML081400510
 08-0024, ``Delegation of Commission
 Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny
 Emergency Plan Changes that Represent
 a Decrease in Effectiveness,'' May 19,
 2008.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 30, ``Generic     ADAMS Accession No. ML071840398
 Environmental Impact Statement for
 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
 Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
 Station,'' August 2007.
State of Vermont Comments..............  ADAMS Accession No. ML15159A183
Public Comments........................  ADAMS Accession Nos.
                                          ML15138A094, ML15159A184, and
                                          ML15159A185
------------------------------------------------------------------------




[[Page 47964]]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31 day of July, 2015.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-19587 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P



                                              47960                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Notices

                                              NUCLEAR REGULATORY                                      INFORMATION CONTACT     section of this               Utilization Facilities.’’ The NRC
                                              COMMISSION                                              document.                                             regulations concerning EP do not
                                                                                                         • NRC’s Agencywide Documents                       recognize the reduced risks after a
                                              [Docket No. 50–271; NRC–2015–0111]
                                                                                                      Access and Management System                          reactor is permanently shut down and
                                              Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;                       (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-                     defueled. As such, a permanently
                                              Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power                            available documents online in the                     shutdown and defueled reactor, such as
                                              Station                                                 ADAMS Public Documents collection at                  VY, must continue to maintain the same
                                                                                                      http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/                        EP requirements as an operating power
                                              AGENCY:  Nuclear Regulatory                             adams.html. To begin the search, select               reactor under the existing regulatory
                                              Commission.                                             ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then                   requirements. To establish a level of EP
                                              ACTION: Environmental assessment and                    select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS                        commensurate with the reduced risks of
                                              finding of no significant impact;                       Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,                    a permanently shutdown and defueled
                                              issuance.                                               please contact the NRC’s Public                       reactor, Entergy requires exemptions
                                                                                                      Document Room (PDR) reference staff at                from certain EP regulatory requirements
                                              SUMMARY:     The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by                   before it can change its emergency
                                              Commission (NRC) is considering                         email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the                plans.
                                              issuance of exemptions in response to a                 convenience of the reader, the ADAMS                     The NRC is considering issuing
                                              request from Entergy Nuclear                            accession numbers are provided in a                   exemptions from portions of 10 CFR
                                              Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the                        table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’            50.47, ‘‘Emergency plans,’’ and 10 CFR
                                              licensee) that would permit the licensee                section of this document.                             part 50, appendix E, ‘‘Emergency
                                              to reduce its emergency planning (EP)                      • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and                   Planning and Preparedness for
                                              activities at the Vermont Yankee                        purchase copies of public documents at                Production and Utilization Facilities,’’
                                              Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee                   the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One                       to Entergy, which would eliminate the
                                              or VY). The licensee is seeking                         White Flint North, 11555 Rockville                    requirements for Entergy to maintain
                                              exemptions that would eliminate the                     Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.                      offsite radiological emergency plans and
                                              requirements for the licensee to                        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                      reduce some of the onsite EP activities,
                                              maintain formal offsite radiological                    James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor                  based on the reduced risks at VY, due
                                              emergency plans, and reduce some of                     Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                   to its permanently shutdown and
                                              the onsite EP activities, based on the                  Commission, Washington, DC 20555–                     defueled status. According to the
                                              reduced risks at VY, which is                           0001; telephone: 301–415–4125; email:                 decision of the United States Court of
                                              permanently shutdown and defueled.                      James.Kim@nrc.gov.                                    Appeals for the Second Circuit in
                                              However, requirements for certain                                                                             Brodsky v. NRC associated with a fire
                                                                                                      SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                              onsite capabilities to communicate and                                                                        protection exemption for Indian Point
                                              coordinate with offsite response                        I. Introduction                                       Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, and
                                              authorities, in the event of an                                                                               demonstrated public interest in this
                                                                                                         Vermont Yankee is a permanently
                                              emergency at VY, would be retained. In                                                                        exemption request, particularly by the
                                                                                                      shutdown and defueled nuclear power
                                              addition, offsite EP provisions would                                                                         State of Vermont, on April 30, 2015 (80
                                                                                                      plant that is in the process of
                                              still exist through State and local                                                                           FR 24291), the NRC published a Federal
                                                                                                      decommissioning, and is located in
                                              government use of a comprehensive                                                                             Register notice seeking public comment,
                                                                                                      Windham County, Vermont, 5 miles
                                              emergency management plan (CEMP)                                                                              pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, on a draft EA
                                                                                                      south of Brattleboro, Vermont. Entergy
                                              process in accordance with the Federal                                                                        and FONSI associated with Entergy’s
                                                                                                      is the holder of the Renewed Facility
                                              Emergency Management Agency’s                                                                                 exemption request. Based on the final
                                                                                                      Operating License No. DPR–28 for VY.
                                              (FEMA’s) Comprehensive Preparedness                                                                           EA and the NRC staff’s responses to the
                                                                                                      Vermont Yankee has been shut down
                                              Guide (CPG) 101, ‘‘Developing and                                                                             comments received on the draft EA, the
                                                                                                      since December 29, 2014, and the final
                                              Maintaining Emergency Operations                                                                              NRC has determined not to prepare an
                                                                                                      removal of fuel from the VY reactor
                                              Plans.’’ The NRC staff is issuing a final                                                                     environmental impact statement for the
                                                                                                      vessel was completed on January 12,
                                              environmental assessment (EA) and                                                                             exemption request and is issuing a
                                                                                                      2015. By letter dated January 12, 2015,
                                              final finding of no significant impact                                                                        FONSI.
                                                                                                      Entergy submitted to the NRC a
                                              (FONSI) associated with the proposed
                                                                                                      certification of the permanent cessation              II. Environmental Assessment
                                              exemptions.
                                                                                                      of power operations at VY and the
                                              DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in                   permanent removal of fuel from the VY                 Description of the Proposed Action
                                              this document are available on August                   reactor vessel. As a permanently                        The proposed action would exempt
                                              10, 2015.                                               shutdown and defueled facility, and                   Entergy from meeting certain
                                              ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID                    pursuant to section 50.82(a)(2) of Title              requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47
                                              NRC–2015–0111 when contacting the                       10 of the Code of Federal Regulations                 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. More
                                              NRC about the availability of                           (10 CFR), VY is no longer authorized to               specifically, Entergy requested
                                              information regarding this document.                    be operated or to have fuel placed into               exemptions from: (1) Certain
                                              You may obtain publicly-available                       its reactor vessel, but the licensee is still         requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b)
                                              information related to this document                    authorized to possess and store                       regarding onsite and offsite emergency
                                              using any of the following methods:                     irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated                   response plans for nuclear power
                                                • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to                  nuclear fuel is currently stored onsite at            reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                              http://www.regulations.gov and search                   VY in a spent fuel pool (SFP) and in an               CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume
                                              for Docket ID NRC–2015–0111. Address                    independent spent fuel storage                        exposure and ingestion pathway EP
                                              questions about NRC dockets to Carol                    installation.                                         zones for nuclear power reactors; and
                                              Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;                        The licensee has requested                         (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part
                                              email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For                     exemptions for VY from certain EP                     50, appendix E, section IV, which
                                              technical questions, contact the                        requirements in 10 CFR part 50,                       establishes the elements that make up
                                              individual listed in the FOR FURTHER                    ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and                the content of emergency plans. The


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:16 Aug 07, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00066   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM   10AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Notices                                            47961

                                              proposed action of granting these                       accidents associated with reactor                     Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
                                              exemptions would eliminate the                          operation is no longer credible.                      Action
                                              requirements for Entergy to maintain                       In its exemption request, the licensee                The NRC staff concludes that the
                                              formal offsite radiological emergency                   identified four possible radiological                 exemptions, if granted, would not
                                              plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350,                                                                       significantly increase the probability or
                                                                                                      accidents at VY in its permanently
                                              and reduce some of the onsite EP                                                                              consequences of accidents at VY in its
                                                                                                      shutdown and defueled condition.
                                              activities at VY, based on the reduced                                                                        permanently shutdown and defueled
                                              risks at the permanently shutdown and                   These are: (1) A fuel handling accident
                                                                                                      (FHA); (2) a radioactive waste handling               condition. There would be no
                                              defueled reactor. However,                                                                                    significant change in the types of any
                                              requirements for certain onsite                         accident; (3) a loss of SFP normal
                                                                                                      cooling (i.e., boil off); and (4) an                  effluents that may be released offsite.
                                              capabilities to communicate and                                                                               There would be no significant increase
                                              coordinate with offsite response                        adiabatic heat up of the hottest fuel
                                                                                                                                                            in the amounts of any effluents that may
                                              authorities, in the event of an                         assembly. The NRC staff evaluated these
                                                                                                                                                            be released offsite. There would be no
                                              emergency at VY, would be retained.                     possible radiological accidents, as                   significant increase in individual or
                                              Additionally, if necessary, offsite                     memorialized in the Commission Paper                  cumulative occupational or public
                                              protective actions could still be                       (SECY) 14–0125, ‘‘Request by Entergy                  radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
                                              implemented using a CEMP process. A                     Nuclear Operations, Inc., for                         no significant radiological
                                              CEMP in this context, also referred to as               Exemptions from Certain Emergency                     environmental impacts associated with
                                              an emergency operations plan (EOP), is                  Planning Requirements,’’ dated                        the proposed action.
                                              addressed in FEMA’s CPG 101. The CPG                    November 14, 2014. In SECY–14–0125,                      With regard to potential non-
                                              101 is the foundation for State,                        the NRC staff stated that it had verified             radiological impacts, the proposed
                                              territorial, Tribal, and local EP in the                that Entergy’s analyses and calculations              action does not have any foreseeable
                                              United States. It promotes a common                     provided reasonable assurance that if                 impacts to land, air, or water resources,
                                              understanding of the fundamentals of                    the requested exemptions were granted,                including impacts to biota. In addition,
                                              risk-informed planning and decision                     then: (1) For a design-basis accident                 there are no known socioeconomic or
                                              making, and helps planners at all levels                                                                      environmental justice impacts
                                                                                                      (DBA), an offsite radiological release
                                              of government in their efforts to develop                                                                     associated with the proposed action.
                                                                                                      will not exceed the U.S. Environmental
                                              and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-                                                                        Therefore, there are no significant non-
                                              threats emergency plans. An EOP is                      Protection Agency’s (EPA) Protective
                                                                                                      Action Guides (PAGs) at the exclusion                 radiological environmental impacts
                                              flexible enough for use in all                                                                                associated with the proposed action.
                                              emergencies. It describes how people                    area boundary, as detailed in the EPA
                                                                                                      ‘‘PAG Manual, Protective Action Guides                   Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
                                              and property will be protected; details                                                                       there are no significant environmental
                                              regarding who is responsible for                        and Planning Guidance for Radiological
                                                                                                                                                            impacts associated with the proposed
                                              carrying out specific actions; identifies               Incidents,’’ dated March 2013, which
                                                                                                                                                            action.
                                              the personnel, equipment, facilities,                   was issued as Draft for Interim Use and
                                              supplies, and other resources available;                Public Comment; and (2) in the unlikely               Environmental Impacts of the
                                              and outlines the process by which all                   event of a beyond DBA, resulting in a                 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
                                              actions will be coordinated. A CEMP is                  loss of all SFP cooling, there is                        As an alternative to the proposed
                                              often referred to as a synonym for ‘‘all-               sufficient time to initiate appropriate               action, the NRC staff considered the
                                              hazards’’ planning.                                     mitigating actions on site and, if a                  denial of the proposed action (i.e., the
                                                 The proposed action is in accordance                 release is projected to occur, there is               ‘‘no-action’’ alternative). The denial of
                                              with the licensee’s application dated                   sufficient time for offsite agencies to               the proposed action would not result in
                                              March 14, 2014, as supplemented by                      take protective actions using a CEMP to               a change to the current environmental
                                              letters dated August 29, 2014, and                      protect the public health and safety. The             impacts. Therefore, the environmental
                                              October 21, 2014. In its letters dated                  Commission approved the NRC staff’s                   impacts of the proposed action and the
                                              August 29, 2014, and October 21, 2014,                                                                        alternative action are similar.
                                                                                                      recommendation to grant the
                                              Entergy provided responses to the NRC
                                              staff’s requests for additional                         exemptions, based on this evaluation in               Alternative Use of Resources
                                              information concerning the proposed                     its Staff Requirements Memorandum
                                                                                                                                                              The proposed action does not involve
                                              exemptions.                                             (SRM) to SECY–14–0125, dated March
                                                                                                                                                            the use of any different resources than
                                                                                                      2, 2015.                                              those previously considered in the Final
                                              Need for the Proposed Action
                                                                                                         Based on these analyses, the licensee              Environmental Statement for VY, dated
                                                 The proposed action is needed for                    states that complete application of the               July 1972, as supplemented by NUREG–
                                              Entergy to revise the VY emergency plan                 EP rule to VY, in its particular                      1437, Supplement 30, ‘‘Generic
                                              to reflect the permanently shutdown                     circumstances as a permanently                        Environmental Impact Statement for
                                              and defueled status of the facility. The                shutdown and defueled reactor, would                  License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
                                              EP requirements currently applicable to                                                                       Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear
                                                                                                      not serve the underlying purpose of the
                                              VY are for an operating power reactor.                                                                        Power Station,’’ Volumes 1 and 2,
                                                                                                      rule or is not necessary to achieve the
                                              There are no explicit regulatory                                                                              published in August 2007.
                                                                                                      underlying purpose of the rule. Entergy
                                              provisions distinguishing EP
                                              requirements for a power reactor that                   also states that it would incur undue                 Agencies or Persons Consulted
                                              has been permanently shut down, from                    costs in the application of operating
                                                                                                                                                              Development of this EA and FONSI
                                                                                                      plant EP requirements for the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                              those for an operating power reactor.                                                                         did not result in consultation.
                                              Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50                     maintenance of an emergency response
                                              license for VY no longer authorizes                     organization in excess of that actually               Discussion of Comments
                                              operation of the reactor or emplacement                 needed to respond to the diminished                     At the conclusion of the draft EA and
                                              or retention of fuel into the reactor                   scope of credible accidents for a                     FONSI comment period on June 1, 2015,
                                              vessel, as specified in 10 CFR                          permanently shutdown and defueled                     the NRC received four submissions
                                              50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated               reactor.                                              containing comments from interested


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:16 Aug 07, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00067   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM   10AUN1


                                              47962                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Notices

                                              members of the public and from the                      appendix E. Therefore, on November 14,                consequences of accidents at VY, would
                                              State of Vermont. Full text versions of                 2014, the NRC staff sought Commission                 not significantly change the types or
                                              the comments can be viewed at http://                   approval with SECY–14–0125 ‘‘for the                  increase the amounts of any effluents
                                              www.regulations.gov, by searching for                   staff to process and grant, as                        that may be released offsite, and would
                                              Docket NRC–2015–0111 and selecting                      appropriate’’ the exemption request. In               not significantly increase individual or
                                              ‘‘Open Docket Folder,’’ or at ADAMS                     SECY–14–0125, the NRC staff also                      cumulative occupational radiation
                                              Accession Nos. ML15138A094,                             explained that it had reviewed Entergy’s              exposure. Therefore, the NRC staff
                                              ML15159A183, ML15159A184, and                           site-specific analyses and calculations               concluded that granting the exemption
                                              ML15159A185, respectively.                              and stated that these analyses provide                request would not have a significant
                                                 Each comment was carefully reviewed                  reasonable assurance that in granting                 effect on the quality of the human
                                              by the NRC staff. Although most of the                  the exemption request: 1) An offsite                  environment. The NRC staff based this
                                              comments were outside the scope of the                  radiological release will not exceed the              finding on the permanently shutdown
                                              draft EA and FONSI, which deal strictly                 EPA PAGs at the site boundary for a                   and defueled status of VY, combined
                                              with the environmental impacts of                       DBA and 2) in the unlikely event of a                 with the long history of technical
                                              granting the exemption request, the NRC                 beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all                 studies demonstrating that the risk for
                                              has responded fully to the comments, as                 SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to              such facilities is very low, and the staff’s
                                              shown below.                                            initiate appropriate mitigating actions               verification that Entergy’s site-specific
                                              State of Vermont Comments                               and, if a release is projected to occur,              analyses provided reasonable assurance
                                                                                                      there is sufficient time for offsite                  that, even with the granting of the
                                                 The State of Vermont’s comments                      agencies to take protective actions using             exemption request, a DBA will not
                                              consisted of two arguments: (1) That the                a CEMP to protect the health and safety               exceed the EPA PAGs at the exclusion
                                              NRC did not comply with the National                    of the public. In response, on March 2,               area boundary and a beyond-DBA will
                                              Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), by                                                                           move slowly enough that appropriate
                                                                                                      2015, the Commission ‘‘approved the
                                              publishing the draft EA after the
                                                                                                      staff’s recommendation to grant’’ the                 onsite mitigating actions may be
                                              Commission had approved the staff’s
                                                                                                      exemption request ‘‘to be implemented                 initiated and, if a release is projected to
                                              recommendation to grant the exemption
                                                                                                      as stipulated in SECY–14–0125.’’ Thus,                occur, offsite agencies would take
                                              request and (2) that the draft EA and
                                                                                                      the NRC staff then proceeded to process               protective actions using a CEMP to
                                              FONSI are deficient and inadequate
                                                                                                      the exemption request by, in part,                    protect the public health and safety.
                                              because they do not take a hard look at
                                                                                                      conducting an EA of the exemption                     Consequently, Vermont’s argument that
                                              all the potential environmental impacts
                                                                                                      request, the draft of which was                       the EA is deficient and inadequate is
                                              of the proposed action, which Vermont
                                                                                                      published for public comment on April                 without merit.
                                              asserts could be significant and, thus,
                                              require evaluation through an                           30, 2015. The NRC has now completed                      The NRC staff also disagrees with
                                              environmental impact statement. The                     its final EA and FONSI, but has still yet             each of Vermont’s specific arguments as
                                              NRC staff does not agree with these                     to approve or deny the exemption                      to why it believes that the EA is
                                              comments. As an initial matter, the                     request. The fact that the Commission                 inadequate. Vermont asserts that the
                                              comments are outside the scope of the                   had approved an NRC staff                             granting of the exemption request would
                                              comment opportunity because they do                     recommendation to grant the exemption                 have ‘‘direct and significant
                                              not have to do with the environmental                   request does not compel the NRC staff                 implications for public health and
                                              impacts of granting Entergy’s exemption                 to grant the exemption request.                       safety,’’ but the EA explicitly found that
                                              request, but are instead procedural and                 Therefore, any future approval or denial              granting the exemption request would
                                              substantive challenges under NEPA, to                   of the exemption request will have                    not have a significant effect on the
                                              an NRC granting of the exemption                        necessarily come only after the NRC had               quality of the human environment.
                                              request that has not yet occurred.                      considered the potential environmental                Vermont asserts that the situation is
                                              Additionally, both arguments are                        impacts of the proposed exemption                     unique because there is an elementary
                                              without merit.                                          request, as well as, the public’s and the             school directly across the street from
                                                 The Vermont argument that the NRC                    State of Vermont’s comments on these                  VY, but this fact is immaterial because
                                              is not procedurally in compliance with                  potential environmental impacts.                      the NRC staff found that Entergy had
                                              NEPA is without merit because,                          Consequently, Vermont’s argument that                 provided reasonable assurance that a
                                              consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC                   the NRC has approved the exemption                    DBA would not result in radiation
                                              conducted the EA for the exemption                      request before taking a hard look at its              exposure greater than or equal to 1 rem
                                              request before making any final decision                potential environmental impacts in                    at the VY boundary and that any
                                              on the exemption request. The NRC                       contravention of NEPA is without merit.               beyond-DBA could be addressed in a
                                              received the exemption request on                          The Vermont argument that the NRC                  timely manner. Vermont asserts that the
                                              March 14, 2014. The exemption request                   is not substantively in compliance with               EA fails to give any consideration to
                                              seeks exemptions from 10 CFR 50.47(b),                  NEPA is without merit because,                        high-burnup fuel in the SFP, but the
                                              10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50,                 consistent with 10 CFR 51.30, the EA                  exemption request’s DBA analysis, as
                                              appendix E. The Commission has                          identifies the proposed action and                    demonstrated in its reference 6 at
                                              previously directed, in SRM to SECY–                    includes a brief discussion of: The need              attachment 4, table 3–2, did indeed
                                              08–0024, ‘‘Delegation of Commission                     for the proposed action; the alternatives             consider high-burnup fuel. Vermont
                                              Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny                   to the proposed action; the                           asserts that the use of an EA is
                                              Emergency Plan Changes that Represent                   environmental impacts of the proposed                 insufficient because Vermont opposes
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                              a Decrease in Effectiveness,’’ dated May                action and alternatives; and a list of                the exemption request as do a number
                                              19, 2008, that the NRC staff should                     agencies and persons consulted and                    of Vermont citizens, but this does not
                                              request Commission approval for any                     identification of sources used. With                  impact the staff’s determination that the
                                              reduction in the effectiveness of a                     respect to environmental impacts, the                 proposed action will not have a
                                              licensee’s emergency plan that requires                 NRC staff found that the exemption                    significant effect on the quality of the
                                              an exemption from the requirements of                   request, if granted, would not                        human environment. Vermont asserts
                                              10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50,                     significantly increase the probability or             that the risks resulting from any


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:16 Aug 07, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00068   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM   10AUN1


                                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Notices                                                          47963

                                              granting of the exemption request are                               Consequently, the NRC staff disagrees                        emergency plans, as described in 44
                                              uncertain, but technical studies                                    with all of Vermont’s comments.                              CFR part 350, and reduce some of the
                                              spanning from 1975 to 2014 have, in                                                                                              onsite EP activities at VY, based on the
                                                                                                                  Public Comments
                                              fact, demonstrated the risks of storing                                                                                          reduced risks at the permanently
                                              spent fuel in SFPs to be very low.                                     In addition to the Vermont comments,                      shutdown and defueled reactor.
                                              Vermont asserts that precedent advises                              the NRC received three sets of public                        However, requirements for certain
                                              against the granting of the exemption                               comments on the draft EA. These public                       onsite capabilities to communicate and
                                              request, but similar exemption requests                             comments raised substantively similar                        coordinate with offsite response
                                              have been granted for eight previous                                issues as the Vermont comments and,                          authorities following declaration of an
                                              facilities. Vermont asserts that granting                           thus, the NRC staff disagrees with them                      emergency at VY will be retained and
                                              the exemption request means that State                              for the same reasons that it disagrees                       offsite ‘‘all hazards’’ EP provisions will
                                              and local officials may no longer receive                           with the Vermont comments, as                                still exist through State and local
                                              training regarding radiological                                     addressed above.                                             government use of a CEMP.
                                              incidents, but does not address
                                                                                                                  III. Finding of No Significant Impact                           Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the
                                              Entergy’s continuing obligation, per 10
                                                                                                                     The licensee has proposed                                 NRC conducted the EA for the proposed
                                              CFR part 50, appendix E.IV.F.1, to make
                                              radiological orientation training                                   exemptions from: (1) Certain                                 action, which is included in Section II
                                              available to local emergency services                               requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b)                              of this document, and incorporated by
                                              and law enforcement, or, per 10 CFR                                 regarding onsite and offsite emergency                       reference in this finding. On the basis of
                                              50.47(b)(15), to make radiological                                  response plans for nuclear power                             this EA, the NRC concludes that the
                                              emergency response training available                               reactors; (2) Certain requirements in 10                     proposed action will not have a
                                              to those called on to assist in an                                  CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume                           significant effect on the quality of the
                                              emergency. Finally, Vermont asserts                                 exposure and ingestion pathway EP                            human environment. Accordingly, the
                                              that the potential environmental                                    zones for nuclear power reactors; and                        NRC has decided not to prepare an
                                              impacts from the exemption request                                  (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part                      environmental impact statement for the
                                              should be analyzed in conjunction with                              50, appendix E, section IV, which                            proposed action.
                                              a prior Entergy termination of the                                  establishes the elements that make up                        IV. Availability of Documents
                                              Emergency Response Data System at                                   the content of emergency plans. The
                                              VY, but this earlier action was taken by                            proposed action of granting these                              The documents identified in the
                                              Entergy, consistent with the                                        exemptions would eliminate the                               following table are available to
                                              Commission’s regulations and, thus, did                             requirements for the licensee to                             interested persons through one or more
                                              not require an environmental review.                                maintain formal offsite radiological                         of the following methods, as indicated.

                                                                                        Document                                                                          ADAMS Accession No./Web link

                                              Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Comprehen-                                       http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf
                                                sive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version 2.0, November 2010.
                                              Docket No. 50–271, Request for Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR                                       ADAMS Accession No. ML14080A141
                                                50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Vermont Yankee Nuclear
                                                Power Station, March 14, 2014.
                                              Docket No. 50–271, Request for Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR                                       ADAMS Accession No. ML14246A176
                                                50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E—Supplement 1, Vermont
                                                Yankee Nuclear Power Station, August 29, 2014.
                                              Docket No. 50–271, Request for Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR                                       ADAMS Accession No. ML14297A159
                                                50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E—Supplement 2, Vermont
                                                Yankee Nuclear Power Station, October 21, 2014.
                                              Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Inci-                                   http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/pag-manual-interim-public-com-
                                                dents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft for Interim Use                                        ment-4-2-2013.pdf
                                                and Public Comment, March 2013.
                                              SECY–14–0125, ‘‘Request by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for Ex-                                    ADAMS Accession No. ML14227A711
                                                emptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,’’ Novem-
                                                ber 14, 2014.
                                              Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY–14–0125, ‘‘Request by                                             ADAMS Accession No. ML15061A516
                                                Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emer-
                                                gency Planning Requirements,’’ March 2, 2015.
                                              Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY–08–0024, ‘‘Delegation of                                          ADAMS Accession No. ML081400510
                                                Commission Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny Emergency Plan
                                                Changes that Represent a Decrease in Effectiveness,’’ May 19, 2008.
                                              NUREG–1437, Supplement 30, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact State-                                        ADAMS Accession No. ML071840398
                                                ment for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Vermont
                                                Yankee Nuclear Power Station,’’ August 2007.
                                              State of Vermont Comments ....................................................................          ADAMS Accession No. ML15159A183
                                              Public Comments .....................................................................................   ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15138A094,               ML15159A184,      and
                                                                                                                                                       ML15159A185
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014       18:16 Aug 07, 2015       Jkt 235001     PO 00000      Frm 00069      Fmt 4703      Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM   10AUN1


                                              47964                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Notices

                                                Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31 day             seal. The Postal Service seeks to                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
                                              of July, 2015.                                          incorporate by reference the Application              COMMISSION
                                                For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.                for Non-Public Treatment originally
                                              A. Louise Lund,                                                                                               [Release No. 34–75594; File No. SR–EDGX–
                                                                                                      filed in this docket for the protection of            2015–35]
                                              Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor          information that it has filed under seal.
                                              Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
                                                                                                      Id.                                                   Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX
                                              Regulation.
                                                                                                         Amendment 2 revises section I of the               Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
                                              [FR Doc. 2015–19587 Filed 8–7–15; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                      contract by inserting in section I, Terms,            Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
                                              BILLING CODE 7590–01–P                                                                                        Rule Change Related to Fees for Use
                                                                                                      new sections I.F and I.G, and replacing
                                                                                                                                                            of EDGX Exchange, Inc.
                                                                                                      section II, Annual Adjustment, in its
                                              POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION                            entirety. Id. Attachment A at 1.                      August 4, 2015
                                                                                                         The Postal Service intends for                        Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
                                              [Docket No. CP2013–44; Order No. 2635]                                                                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
                                                                                                      Amendment 2 to become effective one
                                                                                                      business day after the date that the                  ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
                                              New Postal Product
                                                                                                      Commission issues all necessary                       notice is hereby given that on July 28,
                                              AGENCY:      Postal Regulatory Commission.                                                                    2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the
                                                                                                      regulatory approval. Id. The Postal
                                              ACTION:      Notice.                                                                                          ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the
                                                                                                      Service asserts that the Amendment will
                                                                                                                                                            Securities and Exchange Commission
                                                                                                      not impair the ability of the contract to             (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
                                              SUMMARY:   The Commission is noticing a
                                              recent Postal Service filing concerning                 comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). Notice,                change as described in Items I, II and III
                                              an amendment to Priority Mail Express                   Attachment B.                                         below, which Items have been prepared
                                              & Priority Mail Contract 12 negotiated                  II. Notice of Filings                                 by the Exchange. The Exchange has
                                              service agreement. This notice informs                                                                        designated the proposed rule change as
                                              the public of the filing, invites public                  The Commission invites comments on                  one establishing or changing a member
                                              comment, and takes other                                whether the changes presented in the                  due, fee, or other charge imposed by the
                                              administrative steps.                                   Postal Service’s Notice are consistent                Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
                                              DATES: Comments are due: August 11,                     with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632,                  of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2)
                                              2015.                                                   3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39                  thereunder,4 which renders the
                                                                                                      CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are                proposed rule change effective upon
                                              ADDRESSES:   Submit comments                                                                                  filing with the Commission. The
                                              electronically via the Commission’s                     due no later than August 11, 2015. The
                                                                                                      public portions of these filings can be               Commission is publishing this notice to
                                              Filing Online system at http://                                                                               solicit comments on the proposed rule
                                              www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit                    accessed via the Commission’s Web site
                                                                                                      (http://www.prc.gov).                                 change from interested persons.
                                              comments electronically should contact
                                              the person identified in the FOR FURTHER                  The Commission appoints Lyudmila                    I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
                                              INFORMATION CONTACT section by                          Y. Bzhilyanskaya to represent the                     Statement of the Terms of Substance of
                                              telephone for advice on filing                          interests of the general public (Public               the Proposed Rule Change
                                              alternatives.                                           Representative) in this docket.                          The Exchange filed a proposal to
                                              FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                                                                              amend its schedule of fees and rebates
                                                                                                      III. Ordering Paragraphs                              applicable to Members 5 and non-
                                              David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
                                              202–789–6820.                                             It is ordered:                                      Members of the Exchange pursuant to
                                                                                                                                                            EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) (‘‘Fee
                                              SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                1. The Commission reopens Docket                    Schedule’’) to remove fee code 5, which
                                              Table of Contents                                       No. CP2013–44 for consideration of                    is appended to trades that inadvertently
                                                                                                      matters raised by the Postal Service’s                match against each other and share the
                                              I. Introduction
                                                                                                      Notice.                                               same Market Participant Identifier
                                              II. Notice of Commission Action
                                              III. Ordering Paragraphs                                  2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the                   (‘‘MPID’’) (‘‘Internalized Trade’’) during
                                                                                                      Commission appoints Lyudmila Y.                       the Pre-Opening 6 and Post-Closing
                                              I. Introduction                                         Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of               Sessions.7
                                                                                                      the Commission (Public Representative)                   The text of the proposed rule change
                                                 On July 31, 2015, the Postal Service                                                                       is available at the Exchange’s Web site
                                              filed notice that it has agreed to an                   to represent the interests of the general
                                                                                                      public in this proceeding.                            at www.batstrading.com, at the
                                              Amendment to the existing Priority Mail                                                                       principal office of the Exchange, and at
                                              Express & Priority Mail Contract 12                       3. Comments are due no later than                   the Commission’s Public Reference
                                              negotiated service agreement approved                   August 11, 2015.                                      Room.
                                              in this docket.1 In support of its Notice,
                                                                                                        4. The Secretary shall arrange for
                                              the Postal Service includes a redacted                                                                          1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
                                              copy of Amendment 2 and a                               publication of this order in the Federal
                                                                                                                                                              2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
                                              certification of compliance with 39                     Register.                                               3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

                                              U.S.C. 3633(a), as required by 39 CFR                    By the Commission.                                     4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).

                                              3015.5. Notice at 1.                                    Ruth Ann Abrams,                                        5 The term ‘‘Member’’ is defined as ‘‘any

                                                 The Postal Service also filed the                                                                          registered broker or dealer that has been admitted
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                      Acting Secretary.                                     to membership in the Exchange.’’ See Exchange
                                              unredacted Amendment 2 and                              [FR Doc. 2015–19531 Filed 8–7–15; 8:45 am]            Rule 1.5(n).
                                              supporting financial information under                                                                          6 The ‘‘Pre-Opening Session’’ is defined as ‘‘the
                                                                                                      BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
                                                                                                                                                            time between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Eastern
                                                1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Change                                                          Time.’’ See Exchange Rule 1.5(r).
                                              in Prices Pursuant to Amendment to Priority Mail                                                                7 The ‘‘Post-Closing Session’’ is defined as ‘‘the

                                              Express & Priority Mail Contract 12, July 31, 2015                                                            time between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern
                                              (Notice).                                                                                                     Time.’’ See Exchange Rule 1.5(s).



                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:16 Aug 07, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00070   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM   10AUN1



Document Created: 2015-12-15 12:12:47
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 12:12:47
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionEnvironmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
DatesThe EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on August 10, 2015.
ContactJames Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email: [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 47960 

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR