Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment, 29784-29785 [E5-2586]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29784
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
administrative judges in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302.
Issued in Rockville, Maryland, this 18th
day of May 2005.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E5–2588 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–8]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant;
Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Regarding an
Amendment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415–1132; fax
number:(301) 425–8555; e-mail:
jms3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Special
Materials License No. 2505 that would
add the NUHOMS–32P as an optional
design to the existing NUHOMS–24P
design for dry storage of spent nuclear
fuel. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant,
Inc. (CCNPP) is currently storing spent
nuclear fuel at the Calvert Cliffs
independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) located in Calvert
County, Maryland.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: By
letter dated December 12, 2003, as
supplemented, CCNPP submitted a
request to the NRC to amend the license
(SNM–2505) to add the NUHOMS–32P
as an optional design to the existing
NUHOMS–24P design for dry storage of
spent fuel. The NUHOMS–32P design
stores eight more spent fuel assemblies
than the NUHOMS–24P design.
The proposed action before the NRC
is whether to approve the amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action: The
proposed action would allow CCNPP to
optimize its dry spent fuel storage
capacity by upgrading portions of its
ISFSI to use the NUHOMS–32P dry
shielded canister. The proposed action
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
would allow CCNPP to reduce the
minimum number of canister loadings
each year from four (using the
NUHOMS–24P design) to three (with
the NUHOMS–32P design).
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The staff has
determined that the proposed action
would not endanger life or property. No
effluents are released from the ISFSI
during operation and the proposed
changes have no impact to dry shielded
canister loading activities. Therefore,
there is no significant change in the type
or significant increase in the amounts of
any effluents that may be released
offsite. There is also no significant
increase with regard to individual or
cumulative occupational radiation
exposures because of the proposed
action. The proposed amendment
includes a technical specification
change that would specify that the
current neutron source term technical
specification limit of ≤2.23E8 would
apply to the NUHOMS–24P design and
that the NUHOMS–32P design would
have a neutron source assembly
technical specification limit of ≤3.3E8
neutrons/second/assembly. The contact
dose rate for the NUHOMS–32P design
in a loss of neutron shielding accident
with the revised neutron source term is
1517 mrem/hr. The contact dose rate for
the NUHOMS–24P design in a loss of
neutron shielding accident is 1126
mrem/hr. The regulatory limit for a
design basis accident is 5 rem at 100
meters in accordance with 10 CFR
72.106. When compared to the
regulatory limit, the dose rate increase
from a loss of neutron shielding for the
NUHOMS–32P design would be a
minimal change from the dose rate for
a loss of neutron shielding accident for
a NUHOMS–24P design. All of the other
proposed changes have no impact on
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The amendment only affects the
requirements associated with the
loading of the casks and does not affect
non-radiological plant effluents or any
other aspects of the environment.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
As an alternative to the proposed action,
the staff considered denial of the
amendment request (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Approval or denial
of the amendment request would result
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in minimal change in the environmental
impacts. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and the
alternative action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On
April 28, 2005, Richard McLean of the
State of Maryland was contacted
regarding the proposed action and had
no concerns. The NRC staff has
determined that consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
is not required for this specific
amendment and will not affect listed
species or critical habitat. The NRC staff
has also determined that the proposed
action is not a type of activity having
the potential to cause effects on historic
properties. Therefore, no consultation is
required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
Conclusions: The staff has reviewed
the amendment request submitted by
CCNPP and has determined that adding
the NUHOMS–32P as an optional design
to the existing NUHOMS–24P design for
dry storage of spent nuclear fuel would
have no significant impact on the
environment.
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 NRC finds that the
proposed action of approving the
amendment to the license will not
significantly impact the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined that an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed license amendment is not
warranted.
The request for amendment was
docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket
72–8. For further details with respect to
this action, see the proposed license
amendment dated December 12, 2003,
as supplemented, by a letter dated May
12, 2004. The NRC maintains an
Agencywide Documents Access
Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. These documents
may be accessed through the NRC’s
Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Copies of the
referenced documents will also be
available for review at the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR), located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852.
PDR reference staff can be contacted at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or by
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 11th of
May, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–2586 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC
staff) is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from April 29,
2005 through May 12, 2005. The last
biweekly notice was published on May
10, 2005 (70 FR 24645).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the
date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license and any person whose
interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding
must file a written request for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. Written comments may
also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received
may be examined at the Commission’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of
requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, the licensee
may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to
the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29785
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed within 60
days, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also set forth the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner/requestor
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29784-29785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-8]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant; Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; fax number:(301) 425-8555; e-mail:
jms3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Special
Materials License No. 2505 that would add the NUHOMS-32P as an optional
design to the existing NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of spent
nuclear fuel. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP) is
currently storing spent nuclear fuel at the Calvert Cliffs independent
spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located in Calvert County,
Maryland.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: By letter dated December 12,
2003, as supplemented, CCNPP submitted a request to the NRC to amend
the license (SNM-2505) to add the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to
the existing NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of spent fuel. The
NUHOMS-32P design stores eight more spent fuel assemblies than the
NUHOMS-24P design.
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the
amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action would allow CCNPP
to optimize its dry spent fuel storage capacity by upgrading portions
of its ISFSI to use the NUHOMS-32P dry shielded canister. The proposed
action would allow CCNPP to reduce the minimum number of canister
loadings each year from four (using the NUHOMS-24P design) to three
(with the NUHOMS-32P design).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The staff has
determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or
property. No effluents are released from the ISFSI during operation and
the proposed changes have no impact to dry shielded canister loading
activities. Therefore, there is no significant change in the type or
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite. There is also no significant increase with regard to
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures because of
the proposed action. The proposed amendment includes a technical
specification change that would specify that the current neutron source
term technical specification limit of <=2.23E8 would apply to the
NUHOMS-24P design and that the NUHOMS-32P design would have a neutron
source assembly technical specification limit of <=3.3E8 neutrons/
second/assembly. The contact dose rate for the NUHOMS-32P design in a
loss of neutron shielding accident with the revised neutron source term
is 1517 mrem/hr. The contact dose rate for the NUHOMS-24P design in a
loss of neutron shielding accident is 1126 mrem/hr. The regulatory
limit for a design basis accident is 5 rem at 100 meters in accordance
with 10 CFR 72.106. When compared to the regulatory limit, the dose
rate increase from a loss of neutron shielding for the NUHOMS-32P
design would be a minimal change from the dose rate for a loss of
neutron shielding accident for a NUHOMS-24P design. All of the other
proposed changes have no impact on radiation exposure. Therefore, there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The amendment only affects the requirements associated with the
loading of the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are
no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment request
(i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Approval or denial of the
amendment request would result in minimal change in the environmental
impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On April 28, 2005, Richard McLean
of the State of Maryland was contacted regarding the proposed action
and had no concerns. The NRC staff has determined that consultation
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for this
specific amendment and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is
not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on
historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted
by CCNPP and has determined that adding the NUHOMS-32P as an optional
design to the existing NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of spent
nuclear fuel would have no significant impact on the environment.
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 NRC finds that the proposed action of
approving the amendment to the license will not significantly impact
the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has
determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed
license amendment is not warranted.
The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket
72-8. For further details with respect to this action, see the proposed
license amendment dated December 12, 2003, as supplemented, by a letter
dated May 12, 2004. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of the referenced documents will also be
available for review at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852. PDR reference staff can be
contacted at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 11th of May, 2005.
[[Page 29785]]
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-2586 Filed 5-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
