Progress Energy Carolinas, Incorporated; Notice of Issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Renewal of the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 13053-13055 [05-5279]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 51 / Thursday, March 17, 2005 / Notices
completion of the decommissioning of
the TNP site and eventual termination
of the 10 CFR part 50 license.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: In 1999 the NRC
issued a license to PGE to construct and
operate the Trojan ISFSI. Prior to this
action the NRC examined the
environmental impacts of constructing,
operating, and decommissioning of the
Trojan ISFSI and determined that such
impacts would be acceptably small. The
staff’s conclusions were documented in
an environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact and
published in the Federal Register (61
FR 64378) on December 4, 1996. On the
basis that the proposed exemption deals
with financial matters that will not
affect the physical design or operation
of the Trojan ISFSI, the staff finds that
the proposed exemption will not have
any significant environmental impact.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
As an alternative to the proposed action,
the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Approval or denial of the
exemption request would result in no
change in the environmental impacts
described in the staff’s final EA.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative
action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On
March 3, 2005, Mr. Adam Bless of the
Oregon Office of Energy, Energy
Resources Division, was contacted
regarding the environmental assessment
for the proposed exemption and had no
concerns. The NRC staff previously
evaluated the environmental impacts of
the Trojan ISFSI in the environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 64378) on December 4,
1996, and has determined that
additional consultation under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act is not
required for this specific exemption
which involves financial assurance
mechanisms and will not affect listed
species or critical habitat. The NRC staff
has similarly determined that the
proposed exemption is not a type of
activity having the potential to cause
effects on historic properties. Therefore,
no further consultation is required
under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The environmental impacts of the
proposed action have been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements set
forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the
foregoing EA, the Commission finds that
the proposed action of granting the
partial exemption from 10 CFR
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:51 Mar 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
72.30(c)(5) that requires an ISFSI
licensee to additionally hold a part 50
license in order to use an external
sinking fund as the exclusive means of
financial assurance for
decommissioning costs of an ISFSI, will
not significantly impact the quality of
the human environment. Accordingly,
the Commission has determined that a
Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate, and that an environmental
impact statement for the proposed
exemption is not necessary.
Supporting documentation, with
respect to this exemption request, is
available for inspection at NRC’s Public
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ADAMS.html.
A copy of the PGE request for NRC
approval of a partial exemption from the
provision of 10 CFR 72.30(c)(5), dated
April 29, 2004, can be found at this site
using the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) accession number
ML041260470. Any questions should be
referred to Christopher M. Regan, Spent
Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555, Mailstop O
13D13, telephone (301) 415–8500, fax
(301) 415–8555.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 10th
day of March, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher M. Regan,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05–5280 Filed 3–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–03]
Progress Energy Carolinas,
Incorporated; Notice of Issuance of an
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
License Renewal of the H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project
Manager, Mail Stop O 13D13, Spent
Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13053
(301) 415–1179; fax number: (301) 415–
1179; e-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering
renewing Carolina Power and Light
Company (CP&L) now doing business as
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC’s)
(the applicant’s) License No. SNM–2502
under the requirements of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 72 (10
CFR part 72) authorizing the continued
operation of the H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBRSEP)
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) located at the
HBRSEP in Darlington County, South
Carolina. The Commission’s Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
has completed its review of the
environmental report submitted by the
applicant on February 27, 2004, in
support of its application for a renewed
materials license. The staff’s
‘‘Environmental Assessment related to
the renewal of the H.B. Robinson
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation’’ has been issued in
accordance with 10 CFR part 51.
I. Summary of Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Description of the Proposed Action:
The proposed licensing action would
authorize the applicant to continue
operating a dry storage ISFSI at the
HBRSEP site. The purpose of the ISFSI
is to allow for interim spent fuel storage
and, indirectly, power generation
capability, beyond the term of the
current ISFSI license to meet future
power generation needs. The current
license will expire August 31, 2006. The
renewed ISFSI license would permit 40
additional years of storage beyond the
current license period. The current
ISFSI employs the NUHOMS system
for horizontal, dry storage of irradiated
fuel assemblies in concrete modules
licensed for use at the HBRSEP ISFSI.
Currently, the facility is licensed to
store 56 spent fuel assemblies contained
in 8 steel dry shielded canisters, 7 fuel
assemblies to a canister, housed in 8
horizontal storage modules.
Need for the Proposed Action: The
HBRSEP ISFSI is needed to provide
continued spent fuel storage capacity so
that the HBRSEP can continue to
generate electricity. This renewal is
needed to provide an option that allows
for interim spent fuel storage and,
indirectly, power generation capability,
beyond the term of the current ISFSI
license to meet future system generating
needs. The renewed ISFSI license
would permit 40 additional years of
storage beyond the current license
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
13054
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 51 / Thursday, March 17, 2005 / Notices
period and transfer to a Federal
repository for permanent disposal of the
waste. An exemption would allow an
additional 20 years of storage beyond
the renewal period for a total of 40 years
beyond the original licensed period.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The NRC staff has
concluded that the license renewal of
the HBRSEP ISFSI will not result in a
significant impact to the environment.
The prior NRC Environmental
Assessment associated with the
issuance of Materials License SNM–
2502 continues to form the basis for
assessing the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed license renewal
action. The environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action
concentrate on only those impacts
projected to occur during the requested
40 year license renewal time period.
Environmental impacts include the
potential direct effects on the ambient
environment and its resources. These
potential impacts can be categorized as
non-radiological and radiological
impacts.
There will be no significant
radiological or non-radiological
environmental impacts from routine
operation of the HBRSEP ISFSI during
the extended period of operation. The
ISFSI is essentially a passive facility
with no liquid and gaseous effluents
released from the ISFSI that exceed
Federal regulatory limits. The continued
operation of the HBRSEP ISFSI will
result in no change to the current
impact on land use, water resources, air
quality, generation of wastewater,
geology, biota, cultural resources, and
area demographics and socioeconomics. The HBRSEP ISFSI is in its
completed configuration and as such
there will be no environmental impacts
from construction activities. The staff
does not expect operation of the
HBRSEP ISFSI for an additional period
of 40 years to impact any threatened or
endangered species. The radiological
dose rates from the ISFSI will be limited
by the design of the horizontal storage
module. The total occupational dose to
workers at the HBRSEP site resulting
from continued ISFSI operation will
have a small impact on workers or the
public, but all occupational doses must
be maintained below the limits
specified in 10 CFR part 20. The annual
dose to the nearest resident from
HBRSEP ISFSI activities remains
significantly below the annual dose
limits specified in 10 CFR 72.104 and 10
CFR 20.1301. The cumulative dose to an
individual offsite from all site activities
will be less than the limits specified in
10 CFR 72.104 and 10 CFR 20.1301.
These doses are also a small fraction of
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:51 Mar 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
the doses resulting from naturallyoccurring terrestrial and cosmic
radiation of about 300 mrem/yr in the
vicinity of the HBRSEP ISFSI.
Additionally, occupational doses
received by facility workers will not
exceed the limits specified in 10 CFR
20.1201. For hypothetical accidents, the
calculated dose to an individual at the
nearest site boundary is well below the
5 rem limit for accidents set forth in 10
CFR 72.106(b) and in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
protective action guidelines.
Radiological decommissioning of the
ISFSI would be complete when the last
dry shielded canister is removed from
the site. Small occupational exposures
to workers could occur during
decontamination activities, but these
exposures would be much less than
those associated with cask loading and
transfer operations. Due to the
containment design of the sealed surface
storage casks, no residual contamination
is expected to be left behind on the
horizontal storage module and concrete
base pad. The horizontal storage
modules, base pad, fence, and
peripheral utility structures are defacto
decommissioned when the last cask is
removed.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
The applicant’s Environmental Report
and the staff’s EA discuss several
alternatives to the proposed ISFSI
license renewal. These alternatives
include shipment of spent fuel to a
permanent Federal Repository, ship the
spent fuel off-site, construct a new spent
fuel storage pool at the site, and
construct another on-site ISFSI, as well
as the no action alternative. In the first
category, the alternatives of shipping
spent fuel from HBRSEP to a permanent
Federal Repository or to another spent
fuel storage facility were determined to
be non-viable alternatives, as no such
facilities are currently licensed in the
United States, and shipping the spent
fuel to other power stations is not
common practice because the receiving
utility would have to be licensed to
store the HBRSEP spent fuel, and it is
unlikely that another utility would be
willing to accept it, in light of their own
limitations on spent fuel storage
capacity. Other alternatives include the
construction of additional on-site
storage capabilities. These options were
considered less favorable because of the
increased costs involved and the
additional worker exposures from
transfer of the spent fuel.
Renewal of the HBRSEP ISFSI license
for a term of 20 years would result in
the ISFSI license expiring 4 years prior
to expiration of the proposed HBRSEP
operating license. Based on the expected
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
limits on the amounts of fuel that can
be shipped annually to a potential
Federal Repository and the anticipated
opening of such a facility, PEC estimates
it would not be able to ship all the spent
fuel before expiration of the HBRSEP
ISFSI license. As a result, a third
renewal of the HBRSEP ISFSI license
would be required, thereby adding cost.
The no action alternative could result
in the expiration of the HBRSEP ISFSI
license. The fuel currently stored would
then have to be removed. Storage
capacity limitations would require PEC
to ship fuel to an available offsite
storage facility. Transfer of fuel from the
existing HBRSEP ISFSI to another
facility would increase worker
exposure. Following removal of the fuel
the HBRSEP ISFSI would be
decommissioned. Since the HBRSEP
ISFSI would eventually be
decommissioned, the impacts of the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative are considered
similar to the other alternatives.
As discussed in the EA, the
Commission has concluded that there
are no significant environmental
impacts associated with renewing the
license of the HBRSEP ISFSI, and other
alternatives were not pursued because
of significantly higher costs, additional
occupational exposures, and the
unavailability of offsite storage options.
Agencies and Persons Contacted:
Officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the South Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office, and the
South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources were contacted in preparing
the staff’s environmental assessment.
The conclusions by all agencies
consulted were consistent with the
staff’s conclusions.
II. Finding of No Significant Impact
The staff has reviewed the
environmental impacts of renewing the
HBRSEP ISFSI license relative to the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part
51, and has prepared an Environmental
Assessment. Based on the
Environmental Assessment, the staff
concludes that there are no significant
radiological or non-radiological impacts
associated with the proposed action and
that issuance of renewal of the license
for the interim storage of spent nuclear
fuel at the HBRSEP ISFSI will have no
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Therefore,
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31 and 51.32, a
finding of no significant impact is
appropriate and an environmental
impact statement need not be prepared
for the renewal of the materials license
for the HBRSEP ISFSI.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of
NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 51 / Thursday, March 17, 2005 / Notices
records and documents regarding this
proposed action, including the
application for license renewal dated
February 27, 2004, and supporting
documentation, and the staff’s EA, dated
March 2005, are publically available in
the records component of NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS). These
documents may be inspected at NRC’s
Public Electronic Reading Room at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html under Accession No.
ML040690774 and ML050700137. These
documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s Public Document
Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a
fee. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 10th
day of March, 2005.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Christopher M. Regan,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05–5279 Filed 3–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards; Meeting Notice
In accordance with the purposes of
Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting
on April 7–9, 2005, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of
this meeting was previously published
in the Federal Register on Wednesday,
November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412).
Thursday, April 7, 2005, Conference
Room T–2B3, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks
by the ACRS Chairman (Open)—The
ACRS Chairman will make opening
remarks regarding the conduct of the
meeting.
8:35 a.m.–10 a.m.: Final Review of the
License Renewal Application for
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2 (Open)—The Committee will
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:51 Mar 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of
the Southern Nuclear Operating
Company and the NRC staff regarding
the license renewal application for
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2 and the associated final Safety
Evaluation Report prepared by the
NRC staff.
10:15 a.m.–11:15 a.m.: NUREG–1792,
‘‘Good Practices for Implementing
Human Reliability Analysis’’ (Open)—
The Committee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the NRC staff
regarding NUREG–1792 and the NRC
staff’s resolution of the comments and
recommendations included in the
May 13, 2004 ACRS letter.
11:15 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Preparation for
Meeting with the NRC Commissioners
(Open)—The Committee will discuss
the following topics scheduled for the
ACRS meeting with the NRC
Commissioners: (a) Sump
Performance; (b) Risk-Informing 10
CFR 50.46; (c) Technical Basis for
Potential Revision to the Pressurized
Thermal Shock Screening Criteria; (d)
License Renewal/Power Uprates; (e)
Differences in Regulatory Approaches
Between U.S. and Other Countries.
1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m.: Meeting with the
NRC Commissioners, Commissioners’
Conference Room, One White Flint
North, Rockville, MD (Open)—The
Committee will meet with the NRC
Commissioners to discuss the topics
listed above.
4 p.m.–4:15 p.m.: Subcommittee Report
(Open)—Report by the Acting
Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee
on Plant License Renewal regarding
interim review of the license renewal
application for Millstone Power
Station, Units 2 and 3 and the
associated draft Safety Evaluation
Report prepared by the NRC staff.
4:15 p.m.–6:30 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The
Committee will discuss proposed
ACRS reports on matters considered
during this meeting.
Friday, April 8, 2005, Conference Room
T–2B3, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks
by the ACRS Chairman (Open)—The
ACRS Chairman will make opening
remarks regarding the conduct of the
meeting.
8:35 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: Accident
Sequence Precursor Program and
Development of SPAR Models
(Open)—The Committee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the NRC staff
regarding the status of the Accident
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13055
Sequence Precursor Program and
development of the Standardized
Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) Models.
10:45 a.m.–11:45 a.m.: Future ACRS
Activities/Report of the Planning and
Procedures Subcommittee (Open)—
The Committee will discuss the
recommendations of the Planning and
Procedures Subcommittee regarding
items proposed for consideration by
the full Committee during future
meetings. Also, it will hear a report of
the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee on matters related to
the conduct of ACRS business,
including anticipated workload and
member assignments.
11:45 a.m.–12 Noon: Reconciliation of
ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)—The
Committee will discuss the responses
from the NRC Executive Director for
Operations (EDO) to comments and
recommendations included in recent
ACRS reports and letters. The EDO
responses are expected to be made
available to the Committee prior to
the meeting.
1 p.m.–6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS
Reports (Open)—The Committee will
discuss proposed ACRS reports.
Saturday, April 9, 2005, Conference
Room T–2B3, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The
Committee will continue its
discussion of proposed ACRS reports.
12:30 p.m.–1 p.m.: Miscellaneous
(Open)—The Committee will discuss
matters related to the conduct of
Committee activities and matters and
specific issues that were not
completed during previous meetings,
as time and availability of information
permit.
Procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 5, 2004 (69 FR 59620). In
accordance with those procedures, oral
or written views may be presented by
members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry.
Electronic recordings will be permitted
only during the open portions of the
meeting. Persons desiring to make oral
statements should notify the Cognizant
ACRS staff named below five days
before the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made
to allow necessary time during the
meeting for such statements. Use of still,
motion picture, and television cameras
during the meeting may be limited to
selected portions of the meeting as
determined by the Chairman.
Information regarding the time to be set
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 51 (Thursday, March 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13053-13055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5279]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-03]
Progress Energy Carolinas, Incorporated; Notice of Issuance of an
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
License Renewal of the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project
Manager, Mail Stop O 13D13, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax
number: (301) 415-1179; e-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering renewing Carolina Power and Light
Company (CP&L) now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
(PEC's) (the applicant's) License No. SNM-2502 under the requirements
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 72 (10 CFR part
72) authorizing the continued operation of the H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBRSEP) Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) located at the HBRSEP in Darlington County, South
Carolina. The Commission's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards has completed its review of the environmental report
submitted by the applicant on February 27, 2004, in support of its
application for a renewed materials license. The staff's
``Environmental Assessment related to the renewal of the H.B. Robinson
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation'' has been issued in
accordance with 10 CFR part 51.
I. Summary of Environmental Assessment (EA)
Description of the Proposed Action: The proposed licensing action
would authorize the applicant to continue operating a dry storage ISFSI
at the HBRSEP site. The purpose of the ISFSI is to allow for interim
spent fuel storage and, indirectly, power generation capability, beyond
the term of the current ISFSI license to meet future power generation
needs. The current license will expire August 31, 2006. The renewed
ISFSI license would permit 40 additional years of storage beyond the
current license period. The current ISFSI employs the NUHOMS[supreg]
system for horizontal, dry storage of irradiated fuel assemblies in
concrete modules licensed for use at the HBRSEP ISFSI. Currently, the
facility is licensed to store 56 spent fuel assemblies contained in 8
steel dry shielded canisters, 7 fuel assemblies to a canister, housed
in 8 horizontal storage modules.
Need for the Proposed Action: The HBRSEP ISFSI is needed to provide
continued spent fuel storage capacity so that the HBRSEP can continue
to generate electricity. This renewal is needed to provide an option
that allows for interim spent fuel storage and, indirectly, power
generation capability, beyond the term of the current ISFSI license to
meet future system generating needs. The renewed ISFSI license would
permit 40 additional years of storage beyond the current license
[[Page 13054]]
period and transfer to a Federal repository for permanent disposal of
the waste. An exemption would allow an additional 20 years of storage
beyond the renewal period for a total of 40 years beyond the original
licensed period.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC staff has
concluded that the license renewal of the HBRSEP ISFSI will not result
in a significant impact to the environment. The prior NRC Environmental
Assessment associated with the issuance of Materials License SNM-2502
continues to form the basis for assessing the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed license renewal action. The environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action concentrate on only those
impacts projected to occur during the requested 40 year license renewal
time period. Environmental impacts include the potential direct effects
on the ambient environment and its resources. These potential impacts
can be categorized as non-radiological and radiological impacts.
There will be no significant radiological or non-radiological
environmental impacts from routine operation of the HBRSEP ISFSI during
the extended period of operation. The ISFSI is essentially a passive
facility with no liquid and gaseous effluents released from the ISFSI
that exceed Federal regulatory limits. The continued operation of the
HBRSEP ISFSI will result in no change to the current impact on land
use, water resources, air quality, generation of wastewater, geology,
biota, cultural resources, and area demographics and socio-economics.
The HBRSEP ISFSI is in its completed configuration and as such there
will be no environmental impacts from construction activities. The
staff does not expect operation of the HBRSEP ISFSI for an additional
period of 40 years to impact any threatened or endangered species. The
radiological dose rates from the ISFSI will be limited by the design of
the horizontal storage module. The total occupational dose to workers
at the HBRSEP site resulting from continued ISFSI operation will have a
small impact on workers or the public, but all occupational doses must
be maintained below the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. The annual
dose to the nearest resident from HBRSEP ISFSI activities remains
significantly below the annual dose limits specified in 10 CFR 72.104
and 10 CFR 20.1301. The cumulative dose to an individual offsite from
all site activities will be less than the limits specified in 10 CFR
72.104 and 10 CFR 20.1301. These doses are also a small fraction of the
doses resulting from naturally-occurring terrestrial and cosmic
radiation of about 300 mrem/yr in the vicinity of the HBRSEP ISFSI.
Additionally, occupational doses received by facility workers will not
exceed the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. For hypothetical
accidents, the calculated dose to an individual at the nearest site
boundary is well below the 5 rem limit for accidents set forth in 10
CFR 72.106(b) and in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
protective action guidelines.
Radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI would be complete when
the last dry shielded canister is removed from the site. Small
occupational exposures to workers could occur during decontamination
activities, but these exposures would be much less than those
associated with cask loading and transfer operations. Due to the
containment design of the sealed surface storage casks, no residual
contamination is expected to be left behind on the horizontal storage
module and concrete base pad. The horizontal storage modules, base pad,
fence, and peripheral utility structures are defacto decommissioned
when the last cask is removed.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The applicant's Environmental
Report and the staff's EA discuss several alternatives to the proposed
ISFSI license renewal. These alternatives include shipment of spent
fuel to a permanent Federal Repository, ship the spent fuel off-site,
construct a new spent fuel storage pool at the site, and construct
another on-site ISFSI, as well as the no action alternative. In the
first category, the alternatives of shipping spent fuel from HBRSEP to
a permanent Federal Repository or to another spent fuel storage
facility were determined to be non-viable alternatives, as no such
facilities are currently licensed in the United States, and shipping
the spent fuel to other power stations is not common practice because
the receiving utility would have to be licensed to store the HBRSEP
spent fuel, and it is unlikely that another utility would be willing to
accept it, in light of their own limitations on spent fuel storage
capacity. Other alternatives include the construction of additional on-
site storage capabilities. These options were considered less favorable
because of the increased costs involved and the additional worker
exposures from transfer of the spent fuel.
Renewal of the HBRSEP ISFSI license for a term of 20 years would
result in the ISFSI license expiring 4 years prior to expiration of the
proposed HBRSEP operating license. Based on the expected limits on the
amounts of fuel that can be shipped annually to a potential Federal
Repository and the anticipated opening of such a facility, PEC
estimates it would not be able to ship all the spent fuel before
expiration of the HBRSEP ISFSI license. As a result, a third renewal of
the HBRSEP ISFSI license would be required, thereby adding cost.
The no action alternative could result in the expiration of the
HBRSEP ISFSI license. The fuel currently stored would then have to be
removed. Storage capacity limitations would require PEC to ship fuel to
an available offsite storage facility. Transfer of fuel from the
existing HBRSEP ISFSI to another facility would increase worker
exposure. Following removal of the fuel the HBRSEP ISFSI would be
decommissioned. Since the HBRSEP ISFSI would eventually be
decommissioned, the impacts of the ``no action'' alternative are
considered similar to the other alternatives.
As discussed in the EA, the Commission has concluded that there are
no significant environmental impacts associated with renewing the
license of the HBRSEP ISFSI, and other alternatives were not pursued
because of significantly higher costs, additional occupational
exposures, and the unavailability of offsite storage options.
Agencies and Persons Contacted: Officials from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the South Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office, and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources were
contacted in preparing the staff's environmental assessment. The
conclusions by all agencies consulted were consistent with the staff's
conclusions.
II. Finding of No Significant Impact
The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts of renewing the
HBRSEP ISFSI license relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR
part 51, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment. Based on the
Environmental Assessment, the staff concludes that there are no
significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with
the proposed action and that issuance of renewal of the license for the
interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at the HBRSEP ISFSI will have no
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore,
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31 and 51.32, a finding of no significant impact
is appropriate and an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared for the renewal of the materials license for the HBRSEP ISFSI.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,''
final NRC
[[Page 13055]]
records and documents regarding this proposed action, including the
application for license renewal dated February 27, 2004, and supporting
documentation, and the staff's EA, dated March 2005, are publically
available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at
NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html under Accession No. ML040690774 and ML050700137. These
documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2005.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher M. Regan,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-5279 Filed 3-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
