Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed Exemption, 43463-43465 [E5-3993]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Notices
License No. DPR–23 issued to the
Carolina Power and Light Company (the
licensee) for operation of the H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.
2 (HBRSEP2) located in Darlington
County, South Carolina. The NRC is
issuing this environmental assessment
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21 and is making
a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI).
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.68, ‘‘Criticality Accident
Requirements,’’ subsection (b)(1) during
the spent fuel pool activities related to
the underwater handling, loading, and
unloading of the dry shielded canister
(DSC) NUHOMS -24PTH as described in
proposed Amendment No. 8 to
Certificate of Compliance No. 1004
listed in 10 CFR 72.214. The proposed
action is in accordance with the
licensee’s application dated February
22, 2005, as supplemented on May 10
and July 6, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
In 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the
Commission sets forth the following
requirement that must be met in lieu of
a monitoring system capable of
detecting criticality events:
Plant procedures shall prohibit the
handling and storage at any one time of more
fuel assemblies than have been determined to
be safely subcritical under the most adverse
moderation conditions feasible by unborated
water.
Section 50.12(a) of 10 CFR allows
licensees to request an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 if
the application of the regulation is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule and special
conditions are met. The licensee stated
that compliance with 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1)
is not necessary for underwater
handling, loading, and unloading of the
DSC NUHOMS–24PTH in the HBRSEP2
spent fuel pool to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule. The
NRC has completed its safety evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1) will still be satisfied if the
exemption is granted. The details of the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided in the exemption that will be
issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation.
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:40 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released off site. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore,
there are no significant non-radiological
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives 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). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for HBRSEP2
dated April 1975, and the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (NUREG–1437 Supplement
13) dated December 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On July 11, 2005, the staff consulted
with the South Carolina State official,
Mr. Michael Gandy of the South
Carolina Department of Health,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment set forth above, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment and
is therefore issuing this FONSI.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43463
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated February 22, May 10, and
July 6, 2005. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
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 at 1–800–397–4209 or
301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 20th
day of July, 2005.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–3995 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–13]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas
Nuclear One Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; Issuance of
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Regarding a Proposed Exemption
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact.
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: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission) is considering a request
dated March 21, 2005, from Entergy
Operations, Inc. (applicant or Entergy
Operations) 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 (ANO),
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
43464
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Notices
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation, located 6
miles west-northwest of Russellville,
Arkansas. In consideration of the
request, the NRC would also grant
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 72.212(b)(2)(I) and 72.212(b)(7).
The exemption would authorize the
applicant to store damaged spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies in a
Holtec HI–STORM 100, Amendment 1
design, Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC)
–32.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
I. Identification of Proposed Action
By letter dated March 21, 2005,
Entergy Operations requested an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR 72.214,
specifically, exemption from complying
with Appendix B, Section 2.1, of the
HI–STORM 100 Cask System CoC
(1014), Fuel Specifications and Loading
Conditions. The NRC action would also
include granting exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(I)
and 72.212(b)(7). Approval of the
exemption request would allow storage
of uncanned damaged SNF assemblies
in a HI–STORM 100, Amendment 1
design, MPC–32. Damaged SNF
assemblies may be stored in an HI–
STORM 100, Amendment 2 design,
MPC–32 when properly canned. Entergy
Operations has identified five
previously loaded intact fuel assemblies
that have been reclassified as damaged
SNF assemblies. A damaged SNF
assembly is defined in the HI–STORM
100, Amendment 1 CoC in part as one
with greater than pinhole leak or
hairline cracks. Each of the five SNF
assemblies classified as damaged
contain one interior rod characterized as
defective. In accordance with
Amendment 1 to CoC 1014 granted to
Holtec for the HI–STORM 100 cask
system, and as codified in 10 CFR
72.214, the MPC–32 is not permitted to
store damaged fuel assemblies. ANO as
a general licensee, is authorized by the
NRC to use spent fuel storage casks
approved under 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart
K.
For the NRC to permit Entergy
Operations to continue to store the five
uncanned damaged SNF assemblies in
four HI–STORM 100, Amendment 1
design, MPC–32’s, the NRC, must grant
Entergy Operations an exemption from
the general license conditions defined
in 10 CFR 72.212. The regulations in 10
CFR 72.212 state that the general license
for storage of SNF at power reactor sites
is limited to storage of SNF in casks
approved under the provisions in 10
CFR Part 72. By exempting Entergy
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:40 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
Operations from 10 CFR 72.214 and
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), and
72.212(b)(7), Entergy Operations will be
authorized to use its general license to
store uncanned damaged SNF
assemblies in the HI–STORM 100,
Amendment 1 design, MPC–32. The
proposed action before the Commission
is whether to grant the exemption under
10 CFR 72.7.
The ISFSI is located 6 miles westnorthwest of Russellville, Arkansas, on
the ANO Power Plant site. The ANO
ISFSI is an existing facility constructed
for interim dry storage of spent ANO
nuclear fuel.
II. Need for the Proposed Action
Five uncanned damaged SNF
assemblies are currently loaded into
four HI–STORM 100, Amendment 1
design, MPC–32’s stored at the ANO
ISFSI. Unloading of the damaged SNF
assemblies would subject personnel to a
significant unnecessary dose, generate
additional contaminated waste, increase
the risk of a possible fuel handling
accident, and increase the risk of a
heavy load handling accident. Discharge
of the damaged SNF assemblies from
storage in the MPCs would result in
inadequate storage capacity in the ANO
Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool. If the damaged
SNF assemblies are discharged into the
spent fuel pool, storage of new fuel and
the restoration of normal full core
offload capability prior to and after the
next refueling outage would be
challenged. Recovery of spent fuel pool
space could be significantly hindered
due to double handling of ANO Unit 2
fuel in addition to material and
scheduling conflicts with ANO Unit 1
activities to the extent that ANO Unit 2
core offloads could be jeopardized.
III. Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action
The potential environmental impact
of using the HI–STORM 100 system was
initially presented in the Environmental
Assessment for the final rule to add the
HI–STORM 100 system to the list of
approved spent fuel storage casks in 10
CFR 72.214 (65 FR 25241; May 1, 2000).
Furthermore, each general licensee must
assess the environmental impacts of the
specific ISFSI in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(iii).
This section requires the general
licensee to perform written evaluations
to demonstrate compliance with the
environmental requirements of 10 CFR
72.104, ‘‘Criteria for radioactive
materials in effluents and direct
radiation from an ISFSI or MRS
[Monitored Retrievable Storage
Installation].’’
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The HI–STORM 100 system is
designed to mitigate the effects of design
basis accidents that could occur during
storage. Design basis accidents account
for human-induced events and the most
severe natural phenomena reported for
the site and surrounding area.
Postulated accidents analyzed for an
ISFSI include tornado winds and
tornado generated missiles, design basis
earthquake, design basis flood,
accidental cask drop, lightning effects,
fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design
requirements for each accident
condition, the design of the HI–STORM
100, Amendment 1, cask system using
an MPC–32 basket design, would
prevent loss of containment, shielding,
and criticality control. The loading of
damaged SNF has no impact on the
structural aspects of the containment
boundary. The HI–STORM 100,
Amendment 1 design permits storage of
damaged SNF assemblies in the MPC–
24 and MPC 68 which utilize the same
outer containment boundary as the
MPC–32. Dose surveys performed prior
to placing each cask in service,
including those MPC–32s containing the
damaged SNF assemblies, demonstrated
that each cask satisfied the dose
requirements defined in the HI–STORM
100 Amendment 1 CoC. Any relocation
of the damaged fuel rods, in the fuel
assembly, within the MPC has a
negligible effect on the keff (criticality
control) of the system predominantly
due to the fact that there are no more
than two individual damaged fuel rods
per MPC. Without the loss of either
containment, shielding, or criticality
control, the risk to public health and
safety from the continued storage of five
damaged SNF assemblies in four HI–
STORM 100, Amendment 1 design,
MPC–32s, is not compromised.
By permitting the continued storage of
five uncanned damaged SNF assemblies
using HI–STORM 100 system,
Amendment 1 design, MPC–32s, there
will be no additional occupational
exposure due to unloading activities,
and offsite dose rates will remain well
within the 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined
that an acceptable safety margin is
maintained and that there are no
significant environmental impacts as a
result of continuing to store five
damaged SNF assemblies in four HI–
STORM 100, Amendment 1, MPC–32s
at the ANO ISFSI.
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The staff evaluated the alternative to
the proposed action to deny approval of
the exemption. Denial of the exemption
request would result in unloading of the
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Notices
damaged SNF assemblies subjecting
personnel to unnecessary dose, the
generation of additional contaminated
waste, an increase in the risk of a
possible fuel handling accident, an
increase in the risk of a heavy load
handling accident, and result in
inadequate storage capacity in the ANO
Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool jeopardizing the
ability to fully offload the ANO Unit 2
core.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher M. Regan,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–3993 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
V. Agencies and Persons Consulted
July 28, 2005, Board of Directors
Meeting; Correction
On July 11, 2005, Bernard Bevill from
the Radiation Control Work Unit,
Arkansas Department of Health, was
contacted about the EA for the proposed
action and had no concerns.
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 an
exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),
72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214
so that Entergy Operations may
continue to store uncanned damaged
SNF assemblies in a Holtec HI–STORM
100, Amendment 1 design, MPC–32, at
the ANO, Units 1 and 2 ISFSI, will not
significantly impact the quality of the
human environment.
Further Information
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION
Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC.
ACTION: Correction to meeting notice
published in Vol. 70, No. 137/Tuesday,
July 19, 2005, page 41449.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: OPIC’s Board or Directors
meeting previously scheduled for 10
a.m. on Thursday, July 28, 2005, has
been moved to 9:30 a.m.
New Time and Date: Thursday, July
28, 2005, 9:30 a.m. (open portion); 9:45
a.m. (closed portion).
Contact Person for Information:
Information on the meeting may be
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202)
336–8438.
Dated: July 22, 2005.
Connie M. Downs,
Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private
Investment Corporation
[FR Doc. 05–14922 Filed 7–25–05; 10:30 am]
BILLING CODE 3210–01–M
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 March 21,
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 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.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[File No. 1–12282]
Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application
of Corrpro Companies, Inc. to
Withdraw its Common Stock, no par
value, from Listing and Registration on
the American Stock Exchange LLC
July 21, 2005.
On June 29, 2005, Corrpro Companies,
Inc., an Ohio corporation (‘‘Issuer’’),
filed an application with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section
12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 12d2–2(d)
thereunder,2 to withdraw its common
stock, no par value (‘‘Security’’), from
listing and registration on the American
Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’).
On April 14, 2005, the Board of
Directors (‘‘Board’’) of the Issuer
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of July 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:40 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78l(d).
CFR 240.12d2–2(d).
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43465
approved resolutions to withdraw the
Security from listing and registration on
Amex. The Issuer stated that in making
its decision to withdraw the Security
from Amex, the Board considered the
following factors, among others: (i) The
expectation that delisting and
deregistering the Security will
significantly reduce expenses, avoid
potentially higher future expenses,
enable management to focus more of its
time on operating the company, and
create greater value for the holders of
the Security; (ii) uncertainty over the
Issuer’s continued listing on Amex; (iii)
the increased costs and administrative
burdens associated with being a
reporting company, particularly in light
of new Commission and Sarbanes-Oxley
requirements; (iv) the lack of an active
trading market for the Security; and (v)
the Issuer’s intent not to access the
public markets for its foreseeable
financing needs. The Board stated that
it is desirable and in the best interest of
the Issuer and its shareholders to
terminate listing of the Security on
Amex.
The Issuer stated that it has met the
requirements of Amex’s rules governing
an issuer’s voluntary withdrawal of a
security from listing and registration by
complying with all the applicable laws
in effect in Ohio, in which it is
incorporated.
The Issuer’s application relates solely
to the withdrawal of the Security from
listing on Amex and from registration
under section 12(b) of the Act,3 and
shall not affect its obligation to be
registered under section 12(g) of the
Act.4
Any interested person may, on or
before August 15, 2005, comment on the
facts bearing upon whether the
application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and
what terms, if any, should be imposed
by the Commission for the protection of
investors. All comment letters may be
submitted by either of the following
methods:
Electronic comments:
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/delist.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include the
File Number 1–12282 or;
Paper comments:
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–9303.
3 15
4 15
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
U.S.C. 781(b).
U.S.C. 781(g).
27JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43463-43465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-13]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed Exemption
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission) is considering a request dated March 21, 2005, from
Entergy Operations, Inc. (applicant or Entergy Operations) 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 (ANO),
[[Page 43464]]
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, located
6 miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. In consideration of
the request, the NRC would also grant exemption from the requirements
of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(I) and 72.212(b)(7). The exemption would
authorize the applicant to store damaged spent nuclear fuel (SNF)
assemblies in a Holtec HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 design, Multi-Purpose
Canister (MPC) -32.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
I. Identification of Proposed Action
By letter dated March 21, 2005, Entergy Operations requested an
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR
72.214, specifically, exemption from complying with Appendix B, Section
2.1, of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC (1014), Fuel Specifications
and Loading Conditions. The NRC action would also include granting
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(I) and
72.212(b)(7). Approval of the exemption request would allow storage of
uncanned damaged SNF assemblies in a HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 design,
MPC-32. Damaged SNF assemblies may be stored in an HI-STORM 100,
Amendment 2 design, MPC-32 when properly canned. Entergy Operations has
identified five previously loaded intact fuel assemblies that have been
reclassified as damaged SNF assemblies. A damaged SNF assembly is
defined in the HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 CoC in part as one with
greater than pinhole leak or hairline cracks. Each of the five SNF
assemblies classified as damaged contain one interior rod characterized
as defective. In accordance with Amendment 1 to CoC 1014 granted to
Holtec for the HI-STORM 100 cask system, and as codified in 10 CFR
72.214, the MPC-32 is not permitted to store damaged fuel assemblies.
ANO as a general licensee, is authorized by the NRC to use spent fuel
storage casks approved under 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K.
For the NRC to permit Entergy Operations to continue to store the
five uncanned damaged SNF assemblies in four HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1
design, MPC-32's, the NRC, must grant Entergy Operations an exemption
from the general license conditions defined in 10 CFR 72.212. The
regulations in 10 CFR 72.212 state that the general license for storage
of SNF at power reactor sites is limited to storage of SNF in casks
approved under the provisions in 10 CFR Part 72. By exempting Entergy
Operations from 10 CFR 72.214 and 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), and
72.212(b)(7), Entergy Operations will be authorized to use its general
license to store uncanned damaged SNF assemblies in the HI-STORM 100,
Amendment 1 design, MPC-32. The proposed action before the Commission
is whether to grant the exemption under 10 CFR 72.7.
The ISFSI is located 6 miles west-northwest of Russellville,
Arkansas, on the ANO Power Plant site. The ANO ISFSI is an existing
facility constructed for interim dry storage of spent ANO nuclear fuel.
II. Need for the Proposed Action
Five uncanned damaged SNF assemblies are currently loaded into four
HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 design, MPC-32's stored at the ANO ISFSI.
Unloading of the damaged SNF assemblies would subject personnel to a
significant unnecessary dose, generate additional contaminated waste,
increase the risk of a possible fuel handling accident, and increase
the risk of a heavy load handling accident. Discharge of the damaged
SNF assemblies from storage in the MPCs would result in inadequate
storage capacity in the ANO Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool. If the damaged SNF
assemblies are discharged into the spent fuel pool, storage of new fuel
and the restoration of normal full core offload capability prior to and
after the next refueling outage would be challenged. Recovery of spent
fuel pool space could be significantly hindered due to double handling
of ANO Unit 2 fuel in addition to material and scheduling conflicts
with ANO Unit 1 activities to the extent that ANO Unit 2 core offloads
could be jeopardized.
III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The potential environmental impact of using the HI-STORM 100 system
was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment for the final
rule to add the HI-STORM 100 system to the list of approved spent fuel
storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (65 FR 25241; May 1, 2000). Furthermore,
each general licensee must assess the environmental impacts of the
specific ISFSI in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(b)(2)(iii). This section requires the general licensee to
perform written evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the
environmental requirements of 10 CFR 72.104, ``Criteria for radioactive
materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS
[Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation].''
The HI-STORM 100 system is designed to mitigate the effects of
design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis
accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural
phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated
accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and tornado
generated missiles, design basis earthquake, design basis flood,
accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other
incidents. Considering the specific design requirements for each
accident condition, the design of the HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1, cask
system using an MPC-32 basket design, would prevent loss of
containment, shielding, and criticality control. The loading of damaged
SNF has no impact on the structural aspects of the containment
boundary. The HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 design permits storage of
damaged SNF assemblies in the MPC-24 and MPC 68 which utilize the same
outer containment boundary as the MPC-32. Dose surveys performed prior
to placing each cask in service, including those MPC-32s containing the
damaged SNF assemblies, demonstrated that each cask satisfied the dose
requirements defined in the HI-STORM 100 Amendment 1 CoC. Any
relocation of the damaged fuel rods, in the fuel assembly, within the
MPC has a negligible effect on the keff (criticality
control) of the system predominantly due to the fact that there are no
more than two individual damaged fuel rods per MPC. Without the loss of
either containment, shielding, or criticality control, the risk to
public health and safety from the continued storage of five damaged SNF
assemblies in four HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1 design, MPC-32s, is not
compromised.
By permitting the continued storage of five uncanned damaged SNF
assemblies using HI-STORM 100 system, Amendment 1 design, MPC-32s,
there will be no additional occupational exposure due to unloading
activities, and offsite dose rates will remain well within the 10 CFR
Part 20 limits. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that an
acceptable safety margin is maintained and that there are no
significant environmental impacts as a result of continuing to store
five damaged SNF assemblies in four HI-STORM 100, Amendment 1, MPC-32s
at the ANO ISFSI.
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The staff evaluated the alternative to the proposed action to deny
approval of the exemption. Denial of the exemption request would result
in unloading of the
[[Page 43465]]
damaged SNF assemblies subjecting personnel to unnecessary dose, the
generation of additional contaminated waste, an increase in the risk of
a possible fuel handling accident, an increase in the risk of a heavy
load handling accident, and result in inadequate storage capacity in
the ANO Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool jeopardizing the ability to fully
offload the ANO Unit 2 core.
V. Agencies and Persons Consulted
On July 11, 2005, Bernard Bevill from the Radiation Control Work
Unit, Arkansas Department of Health, was contacted about the EA for the
proposed action and had no concerns.
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 an exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 so that Entergy Operations may continue to
store uncanned damaged SNF assemblies in a Holtec HI-STORM 100,
Amendment 1 design, MPC-32, at the ANO, Units 1 and 2 ISFSI, will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
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 March 21, 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 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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of July 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. E5-3993 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
