Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth Massachusetts

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY <SUBAGY>Coast Guard</SUBAGY> <CFR>33 CFR Part 165</CFR> <DEPDOC>[Docket Number USCG-2024-0500]</DEPDOC> <RIN>RIN 1625-AA00</RIN> <SUBJECT>Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth Massachusetts</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Coast Guard, DHS. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Notice of proposed rulemaking. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the existing security zone for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Since the implementation of the regulation, the facility has permanently ceased power operations making the provisions of the security zone no longer applicable. The waterfront facility's security zone will be removed from all charts, publications, and other navigational references. All related private aids to navigational marking the boundaries of the security zone will also be removed. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 30, 2024. </EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-0500 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov.</E> See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the <E T="02">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION</E> section for further instructions on submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be available in this same docket. <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call, or email Mr. Timothy Chase. Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-447-1620, email <E T="03">Timothy.w.chase@uscg.mil</E> . </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Table of Abbreviations</HD> <EXTRACT> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">CFR Code of Federal Regulations</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">COTP Captain of the Port Sector Boston</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">DHS Department of Homeland Security</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">FR Federal Register</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">§ Section </FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">U.S.C. United States Code</FP> </EXTRACT> <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis</HD> On September 11, 2001, four commercial aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon, inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. National security and intelligence officials warned that future terrorist attacks were likely. In response, on May 30, 2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule titled “Safety and Security Zones; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth Massachusetts” in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> (67 FR 37693). On October 2, 2009 the regulation was amended by <E T="04">Federal Register</E> (74 FR 50925) establishing a permanent safety and security zone on all waters of Cape Cod Bay and land adjacent to those waters enclosed by a line beginning at position 41-56′59.3″ N, 070-34′58.5″ W; thence to 41-57′12.2″ N, 070-34′41.9″ W; thence to 41-56′42.3″ N, 070-34′00.1″ W; thence to 41-56′29.5″ N, 070-34′14.5″ W within Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Boston, Massachusetts as part of a comprehensive, port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels and waterfront facilities from sabotage or terrorist acts. On June 10, 2019, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc (site prior owner) notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that the power operations have ceased at Pilgrim Nuclear Station (PNPS) and that the nuclear fuel was permanently removed from the PNPS reactor vessel as per 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Effectively, Entergy understood and acknowledged that upon docketing these certifications (ML19161A033), the PNPS 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorized operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. Subsequently, the facility license and ownership of Pilgrim Station was transferred to HDI on August 27, 2019 (ML19235A050). On December 14, 2021, HDI notified the NRC (ML21348A748) that all nuclear fuel was transferred out of the spent nuclear fuel pool and was placed in dry cask storage containers within the newly built Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). These dry cask storage containers are air cooled and do not rely on cooling water from cape cod bay for nuclear fuel cooling. On January 9, 2024, Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc, notified the Coast Guard that they had provided all the required documentation for disestablishment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as per 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Power operations have ceased at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. For the reason discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the security zone cited in 33 CFR 165.115, Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, Massachusetts by removing that section completely and reserving it for future use. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. <HD SOURCE="HD1">III. Discussion of Proposed Rule</HD> The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the security zone cited in 33 CFR 165.115, Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, Massachusetts, by removing that section and reserving it for future use. <HD SOURCE="HD1">IV. Regulatory Analyses</HD> We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Regulatory Planning and Review</HD> Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This regulatory action determination is based on the need to align the regulations with the current arrangements of the port as the waterfront facility safety zone is no longer required. The Captain of the Port Sector Boston proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.115(a)(1) and reserve it for future use. <HD SOURCE="HD2">B. Impact on Small Entities</HD> The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see <E T="02">ADDRESSES</E> ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the <E T="02">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT</E> section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. <HD SOURCE="HD2">C. Collection of Information</HD> This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). <HD SOURCE="HD2">D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments</HD> A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Also, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the <E T="02">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT</E> section. <HD SOURCE="HD2">E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act</HD> The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 15k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━