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 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 http:// 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 http:// 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: http://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: http://
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