Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment, 37124-37125 [E5-3340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37124
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Notices
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.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No 72–13]
Entergy Operations, Incorporated;
Notice of Withdrawal of Request for
Exemption for Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit 1 and Unit 2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of the
request for exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and
10 CFR 72.214.
AGENCY:
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415–1179; fax number:
(301) 415–1179; e-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion
In a letter dated June 9, 2005, to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or Commission) Entergy
Operations, Inc. (applicant or Entergy
Operations) withdrew a request dated
May 23, 2005, for exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and
10 CFR 72.214 pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7,
for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1
(ANO–1) and Unit 2 (ANO–2), facility
located 6 miles west-northwest of
Russellville, Arkansas. The staff has
terminated its review of the request. The
request was docketed under 10 CFR part
72; the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation Docket No. is 72–13.
II. Further Information
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of
NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC
records and documents regarding this
proposed action, including the
exemption request dated May 23, 2005,
and withdrawal dated June 9, 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.
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
16:46 Jun 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate jul<14>2003
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 20th
day of June 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. E5–3341 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
[Docket No. 72–42]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Incorporated; Notice of Withdrawal of
Request for Exemption; for the Joseph
M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit
2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of the
request for exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and
10 CFR 72.214.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415–1179; fax number:
(301) 415–1179; e-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion
II. Further information
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of
NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC
records and documents regarding this
proposed action, including the
exemption request dated May 20, 2005,
and withdrawal dated June 9, 2005, are
publically available in the records
component of NRC’s Agencywide
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of June 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. E5–3343 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–20]
Department of Energy; Three Mile
Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; Issuance of
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Regarding an Amendment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
In a letter dated June 9, 2005, to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or Commission) Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc. (applicant or
SNC) withdrew a request dated May 20,
2005, for exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and
10 CFR 72.214 pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7,
for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
(FNP), Unit 1 and Unit 2, facility located
in Houston County, Alabama. The staff
has terminated its review of the request.
The request was docketed under 10 CFR
Part 72; the Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation Docket No. is 72–42.
PO 00000
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.
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.
Sfmt 4703
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.
The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Special
Nuclear Materials License No. 2508 that
would revise the technical specification
corrective actions if the 5 year leak test
of the dry shielded canisters fails. The
Department of Energy (DOE) is currently
storing spent nuclear fuel at the Three
Mile Island 2 (TMI–2) independent
spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)
located in Butte County, Idaho.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Notices
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: By
letter dated January 31, 2005, as
supplemented, DOE submitted a request
to the NRC to amend the license (SNM–
2508) to revise the technical
specification corrective actions if the 5
year leak test on the dry shielded
canisters (DSC) fails.
The core debris from the TMI–2
reactor is stored in the ISFSI. The DSCs
are vented through high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters to provide
a diffusion path for hydrogen from the
TMI–2 core debris. The interface
between each vent housing and its DSC
has dual metallic seals applied between
polished surfaces of the DSC and the
vent housings. The vent housing seals
are subject to a limiting condition for
operation (LCO), which specifies a
maximum allowable leak rate.
Verification of the LCO is performed by
a surveillance performed on a 5 year
period. If the leak test fails, the current
technical specifications require
reseating or replacing the seals and
performing another leak check. If the
seal integrity cannot be restored, then by
current technical specifications the
affected DSC must be removed from its
horizontal storage module (HSM). The
proposed technical specifications would
allow replacement of the metallic seals
with elastomeric seals that are less
sensitive to surface imperfections
without movement of the DSC. In
addition, if the leak check fails after
replacement of the seals, the proposed
technical specification would no longer
require removal of the DSC from its
HSM. Instead, the proposed technical
specifications would require a monthly
contamination survey at the affected
DSC-vent housing interface and the
submission of a report to the NRC
describing the condition, analysis, and
corrective actions being taken.
The proposed action before the NRC
is whether to approve the amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action: The
proposed action would allow DOE to
take corrective actions in-situ without
movement of the DSC. There would be
less cost involved and mitigation in
place would eliminate unnecessary
worker radiation exposure and reduce
operational risk associated with moving
the DSC.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The staff has
determined that the proposed action
would not endanger life or property.
The DSC vent housing seals are
intended to ensure that air flowing out
of the DSC is routed through HEPA
grade filters for confinement of
radioactive particulate material. In this
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:46 Jun 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
configuration (vented, without a source
of pressure to force material through a
restriction), a compressed vent housing
seal does not represent a viable pathway
for the uncontrolled release of
radioactive materials. The proposed
license amendment request includes an
additional required action to perform
surveys for radiological contamination
at any adversely affected DSC vent
housing. Therefore, there is no
significant change in the type or
significant increase in the amounts of
any effluents that may be released
offsite.
There would be a reduction with
regard to individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposures
because of the proposed action. The
current technical specification requires
removal of the DSC to an alternate
facility and maintenance of the DSC.
The proposed action involves
attempting to make repairs to the DSC
vent housing seals in-situ. The DSC is
stored in a well-shielded system (the
reinforced concrete HSM). Attempting
repairs while the DSC is inside the HSM
in accordance with the proposed
technical specifications would result in
a decreased radiation exposure to
workers. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
The amendment does not affect nonradiological 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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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
June 8, 2005, Douglas Walker of the
Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37125
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
DOE and has determined that revising
the technical specification corrective
actions if the 5 year leak test of the DSCs
fails 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
72–20. For further details with respect
to this action, see the proposed license
amendment dated January 31, 2005, as
supplemented, by a letter dated June 9,
2005. 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 22nd of
June, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–3340 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37124-37125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-20]
Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; 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
Nuclear Materials License No. 2508 that would revise the technical
specification corrective actions if the 5 year leak test of the dry
shielded canisters fails. The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently
storing spent nuclear fuel at the Three Mile Island 2 (TMI-2)
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located in Butte
County, Idaho.
[[Page 37125]]
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: By letter dated January 31,
2005, as supplemented, DOE submitted a request to the NRC to amend the
license (SNM-2508) to revise the technical specification corrective
actions if the 5 year leak test on the dry shielded canisters (DSC)
fails.
The core debris from the TMI-2 reactor is stored in the ISFSI. The
DSCs are vented through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters
to provide a diffusion path for hydrogen from the TMI-2 core debris.
The interface between each vent housing and its DSC has dual metallic
seals applied between polished surfaces of the DSC and the vent
housings. The vent housing seals are subject to a limiting condition
for operation (LCO), which specifies a maximum allowable leak rate.
Verification of the LCO is performed by a surveillance performed on a 5
year period. If the leak test fails, the current technical
specifications require reseating or replacing the seals and performing
another leak check. If the seal integrity cannot be restored, then by
current technical specifications the affected DSC must be removed from
its horizontal storage module (HSM). The proposed technical
specifications would allow replacement of the metallic seals with
elastomeric seals that are less sensitive to surface imperfections
without movement of the DSC. In addition, if the leak check fails after
replacement of the seals, the proposed technical specification would no
longer require removal of the DSC from its HSM. Instead, the proposed
technical specifications would require a monthly contamination survey
at the affected DSC-vent housing interface and the submission of a
report to the NRC describing the condition, analysis, and corrective
actions being taken.
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the
amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action would allow DOE
to take corrective actions in-situ without movement of the DSC. There
would be less cost involved and mitigation in place would eliminate
unnecessary worker radiation exposure and reduce operational risk
associated with moving the DSC.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The staff has
determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or
property. The DSC vent housing seals are intended to ensure that air
flowing out of the DSC is routed through HEPA grade filters for
confinement of radioactive particulate material. In this configuration
(vented, without a source of pressure to force material through a
restriction), a compressed vent housing seal does not represent a
viable pathway for the uncontrolled release of radioactive materials.
The proposed license amendment request includes an additional required
action to perform surveys for radiological contamination at any
adversely affected DSC vent housing. Therefore, there is no significant
change in the type or significant increase in the amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite.
There would be a reduction with regard to individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposures because of the proposed action. The
current technical specification requires removal of the DSC to an
alternate facility and maintenance of the DSC. The proposed action
involves attempting to make repairs to the DSC vent housing seals in-
situ. The DSC is stored in a well-shielded system (the reinforced
concrete HSM). Attempting repairs while the DSC is inside the HSM in
accordance with the proposed technical specifications would result in a
decreased radiation exposure to workers. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
The amendment 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 June 8, 2005, Douglas Walker of
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 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 DOE and has determined that revising the technical specification
corrective actions if the 5 year leak test of the DSCs fails 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
72-20. For further details with respect to this action, see the
proposed license amendment dated January 31, 2005, as supplemented, by
a letter dated June 9, 2005. 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 22nd of June, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-3340 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
