Carolina Power and Light Company; H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 44940-44942 [E5-4145]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44940
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices
National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
DATE AND TIME: 9:30 a.m. on Friday,
August 19, 2005.
PLACE: Ceremonial Courtroom, United
States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Nineteenth floor,
Phillip Burton Federal Building and
United States Courthouse, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102.
STATUS: Open—Public Hearing.
MATTERS CONSIDERED: The victimization
of vulnerable prisoners, including
youth, gay, and mentally ill inmates.
Survivors will testify about having been
sexually assaulted while incarcerated,
and expert witnesses will discuss the
victimizing of vulnerable inmates.
AGENCY CONTACT: L. Jackson Thomas II,
Acting Executive Director, National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission,
(202) 616–9052.
AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:
Dated: August 1, 2005.
L. Jackson Thomas II,
Acting Executive Director, National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–15548 Filed 8–2–05; 3:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–219]
Amergen Energy Company, LLC;
Notice of Receipt and Availability of
Application for Renewal of Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
Facility Operating License No. Dpr–16,
for an Additional 20-Year Period
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) has
received an application, dated July 22,
2005, from AmerGen Energy Company,
LLC, filed pursuant to Section 104b
(DPR–16) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 54,
to renew the operating license for the
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station. Renewal of the license would
authorize the applicant to operate the
facility for an additional 20-year period
beyond the period specified in the
current operating license. The current
operating license for the Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station (DPR–16)
expires on April 9, 2009. The Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station is a
Boiling Water Reactor designed by
General Electric. The unit is located
near Forked River, NJ. The acceptability
of the tendered application for
docketing, and other matters including
an opportunity to request a hearing, will
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:23 Aug 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
be the subject of subsequent Federal
Register notices.
Copies of the application are available
for public inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, 20582 or
electronically from the NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room under
accession number ML052080172. The
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room is accessible from the NRC’s Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. In addition, the application
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/
reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/
applications.html, on the NRC’s Web
page, while the application is under
review. Persons who do not have access
to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC’s PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
extension 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
A copy of the license renewal
application for the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station is also available to
local residents near the Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station at the Lacey
Public Library, 10 East Lacey Road,
Forked River, NJ 08731.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day
of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samson S. Lee,
Acting Program Director, License Renewal
and Environmental Impacts Program,
Division of Regulatory Improvement
Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–4146 Filed 8–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–60]
Carolina Power and Light Company;
H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption to
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. also
known as Carolina Power & Light
Company (CP&L or licensee), pursuant
to 10 CFR 72.7, from specific provisions
of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),
72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and
72.214. The licensee wants to use the
Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) NUHOMS
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Storage System, Certificate of
Compliance No. 1004 (CoC or
Certificate) Amendment No. 8 (24PTH
DCS), to store spent nuclear fuel under
a general license in an Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
associated with the operation of the H.
B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit
No. 2 (HBRSEP2), located in Darlington
County, South Carolina. The requested
exemption would allow CP&L to use the
TN NUHOMS–24PTH system with
revised transfer cask/dry shielded
canister (TC/DSC) handling and lifting
height specifications prior to
completion of the proposed TN
NUHOMS CoC Amendment No. 8
rulemaking.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: The
proposed action would exempt CP&L
from the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and enable
CP&L to use the TN NUHOMS–24PTH
cask design with modifications at
HBRSEP2. These regulations
specifically require storage in casks
approved under the provisions of 10
CFR Part 72 and compliance with the
conditions set forth in the CoC for each
dry spent fuel storage cask used by an
ISFSI general licensee. The TN
NUHOMS CoC provides requirements,
conditions, and operating limits in
Attachment A, Technical Specifications.
The proposed action would exempt
CP&L from the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 enabling the
licensee to store fuel in the TN
NUHOMS–24PTH DSC system prior to
the effective date of the final rule
change for the Amendment No. 8
approving the issuance of this amended
CoC. The proposed action would also
exempt CP&L from the requirements of
10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) and
72.212(b(7) to allow lifting and handling
a loaded TC/DSC above the height limit
in the proposed Amendment No. 8.
Specifically, the exemption would be
from the requirement to limit the lift
height of a loaded TC/DSC to 80 inches
when outside the spent fuel pool
building. In lieu of this requirement,
CP&L stated that the TC/DSC will not be
lifted higher than 80 inches when not
being handled by devices that meet the
existing 10 CFR Part 50 license heavy
load requirements.
Additionally, TN identified an issue
in the proposed Amendment No. 8 CoC
that resulted in a need for clarification
to the proposed technical specifications
in regard to thermal loading patterns
and transit times for the 24PTH DSC.
CP&L stated that a limit of 1.3 kilowatts
decay heat level per fuel assembly will
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices
be imposed to ensure cask loadings are
bounded by the analyses supporting the
proposed Amendment No. 8. Further,
the NRC staff identified an issue in the
proposed Amendment No. 8 CoC related
to the potential for air (oxygen) to come
in contact with spent fuel during DSC
draining and vacuum drying evolutions.
CP&L committed to implementing
procedural controls to ensure that (1)
only nitrogen or helium is used for
blowdown during vacuum drying
evolutions, and (2) when draining water
from the DSC at or below the level of the
fuel cladding, a nitrogen cover will be
used. CP&L requested that the
exemptions remain in effect for 90 days
following the effective date of the final
rule change to 10 CFR 72.214 to
incorporate TN CoC No. 1004,
Amendment No. 8. The proposed action
would allow CP&L to use the –24PTH
system as described in the TN
NUHOMS CoC amendment requests
currently under staff review and subject
to the commitments made by CP&L with
respect to the issues that have been
identified in the proposed CoC for TN
NUHOMS Amendment No. 8.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s request for
exemption dated June 13, 2005, as
supplemented July 20, 2005.
Need for the Proposed Action: The
proposed action is needed because
CP&L plans to initiate the transfer of the
HBRSEP2 spent fuel pool contents to
the ISFSI in August 2005. The fuel
transfer campaign was scheduled to
begin in late July 2005. The licensee has
planned its dry fuel campaign to
support the HBRSEP2 Refuel Outage 23
(RO–23), currently scheduled to begin
on September 17, 2005. The licensee
stated that the exemption is requested to
maintain the ability to offload a full core
of 157 fuel assemblies upon restart from
RO–23 in October 2005.
Additionally, if no fuel is transferred
to dry storage prior to the start of RO–
23, there would be insufficient space in
the spent fuel pool for the 56 new fuel
assemblies that will be loaded into the
reactor core during RO–23. This would
complicate the fuel handling evolutions
required for core reload during the
outage. The proposed action is
necessary because the 10 CFR 72.214
rulemaking to implement the TN
NUHOMS CoC Amendment No. 8 is
not projected for completion until late
Fall 2005, which will not support the
HBRSEP2 fuel transfer and dry cask
storage loading schedule.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The NRC has
completed its evaluation of the
proposed action and concludes that
there will be no significant
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:23 Aug 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
environmental impact if the exemptions
are granted. The staff reviewed the
analyses provided in the TN NUHOMS
amendment applications addressing the
NUHOMS –24PTH, –32PT, and
–24PHB systems. Included in those
applications were TC/DSC lifting and
handling height technical specification
revisions. The staff has completed
Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs)
associated with reviews of the
applications. The SER for the TN
NUHOMS –24PTH system
documenting the staff’s safety findings
and conclusions was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 2005. The
SER documenting the staff’s safety
finding associated with the lifting and
handling height restriction revision was
included as an enclosure to the letter to
U. B. Chopra, dated March 30, 2005.
The thermal loading pattern issue
identified by TN was reviewed by the
staff and found to be acceptable, with a
1.3 kW per assembly decay heat limit.
The staff-identified issue regarding
spent fuel in an oxidizing environment
was reviewed and found acceptable
provided the spent fuel environment for
short term operations, draining and
vacuum drying, is limited to an inert
atmosphere (nitrogen or helium). The
staff agrees that both CP&L
commitments, regarding the decay heat
limit per fuel assembly and the limiting
of blowdown and draining evolutions to
an environment of nitrogen or helium,
will maintain safety regarding fuel
loading and transfer operations. The
NRC concludes that there is reasonable
assurance that the proposed exemptions
have no impact on off-site doses.
The potential environmental impact
of using the NUHOMS system was
initially presented in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to
add the TN Standardized NUHOMS
Horizontal Modular Storage System for
Irradiated Nuclear Fuel to the list of
approved spent fuel storage casks in 10
CFR 72.214 (59 FR 65898, dated
December 22, 1994). The potential
environmental impact of using the
NUHOMS –24PTH system was
initially presented in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the direct final rule
to add the 24PTH system to the
Standardized NUHOMS system,
Amendment No. 8 (70 FR 29931, dated
May 25, 2005). The TN –24PTH, –32PT,
and –24PHB systems do not increase the
probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in
the types of any effluents that may be
released offsite, and there is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44941
environmental 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
nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since there is no significant
environmental impact associated with
the proposed action, alternatives with
equal or greater environmental impact
were not evaluated. As an alternative to
the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action. Denial of
the exemption would result in no
change in current environmental
impact.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: This
exemption request was discussed with
Mr. Henry Porter, Assistant Director of
the Division of Waste Management,
Department of Health and
Environmental Control, for the State of
South Carolina, on July 13, and July 27,
2005. He stated that the State had no
comments on the technical aspects of
the exemption. The NRC staff has
determined that a consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
is not required because the proposed
action 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 further
consultation is required under Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
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 Environmental Assessment,
the Commission finds that the proposed
action of granting the exemption from
specific provisions of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR 72.214, to
allow CP&L to use a modified version of
the proposed CoC No. 1004,
Amendment No. 8, subject to
conditions, will not significantly impact
the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that an environmental
impact statement for the proposed
exemption is not warranted.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
44942
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of
NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC
records and documents regarding this
proposed action are publically available
in the records component of NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS). The
request for exemption dated June 13,
2005, and July 20, 2005, was docketed
under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket No. 72–
60. These documents may be inspected
at NRC’s Public Electronic Reading
Room at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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 29th day
of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–4145 Filed 8–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–261]
Carolina Power and Light Company,
H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 2; Exemption
1.0 Background
Carolina Power & Light Company
(CP&L or the licensee) is the holder of
Renewed Facility Operating License No.
DPR–23, which authorizes operation of
the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2). The license
provides, among other things, that the
facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC, the
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Darlington
County, South Carolina.
2.0 Request/Action
By letter dated February 22, 2005, as
supplemented by letters dated May 10,
July 6, and July 14, 2005, the licensee
submitted a request for an exemption
from the requirements of Title 10 of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:23 Aug 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.68(b)(1) during the spent fuel
pool (SFP) 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 at HBRSEP2.
Section 50.68(b)(1) of 10 CFR 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.
The licensee is unable to satisfy the
above requirement for handling of the
Transnuclear (TN) NUHOMS–24PTH
DSC authorized by 10 CFR Part 72 at
HBRSEP2. Section 50.12(a) allows
licensees to apply for 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
in the application that compliance with
10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) is not necessary for
handling the TN NUHOMS–24PTH
DSC system to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule.
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to public
health or safety, and are consistent with
the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are
present. Therefore, in determining the
acceptability of the licensee’s exemption
request, the staff has performed the
following regulatory, technical, and
legal evaluations to satisfy the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for
granting the exemption.
3.1 Regulatory Evaluation
The HBRSEP2 Technical
Specifications (TS) currently permit the
licensee to store spent fuel assemblies in
high-density storage racks in its SFP. In
accordance with the provisions of 10
CFR 50.68(b)(4), the licensee takes
credit for soluble boron for criticality
control and ensures that the effective
multiplication factor (keff) of the SFP
does not exceed 0.95, if flooded with
borated water. Section 50.68(b)(4) of 10
CFR also requires that if credit is taken
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for soluble boron, the keff must remain
below 1.0 (subcritical) if flooded with
unborated water. However, the licensee
is unable to satisfy the requirement to
maintain the keff below 1.0 (subcritical)
with unborated water, which is also the
requirement of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1),
during cask handling operations in the
SFP. Therefore, the licensee’s request
for exemption from 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1)
proposes to permit the licensee to
perform spent fuel loading, unloading,
and handling operations related to dry
cask storage without being subcritical
under the most adverse moderation
conditions feasible by unborated water.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50, Appendix A,
‘‘General Design Criteria (GDC) for
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ provides a list of
the minimum design requirements for
nuclear power plants. According to GDC
62, ‘‘Prevention of criticality in fuel
storage and handling,’’ the licensee
must limit the potential for criticality in
the fuel handling and storage system by
physical systems or processes.
HBRSEP2 was licensed prior to the
issuance of the GDC listed in 10 CFR 50,
Appendix A; therefore, GDC 62 is not
directly applicable. However, HBRSEP2
has committed to a plant-specific
version of the 1967 draft GDC as
discussed in its Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR), Section 3.1.2.
The comparable GDC is Criterion 66,
‘‘Prevention of Fuel Storage Criticality,’’
that states: ‘‘Criticality in the new and
spent fuel storage pits shall be
prevented by physical systems or
processes. Such means as geometrically
safe configurations shall be emphasized
over procedural controls.’’
Section 50.68 of 10 CFR Part 50,
‘‘Criticality accident requirements,’’
provides the NRC requirements for
maintaining subcritical conditions in
SFPs. Section 50.68 provides criticality
control requirements that, if satisfied,
ensure that an inadvertent criticality in
the SFP is an extremely unlikely event.
These requirements ensure that the
licensee has appropriately conservative
criticality margins during handling and
storage of spent fuel. Section 50.68(b)(1)
states, ‘‘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.’’
Specifically, 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) ensures
that the licensee will maintain the pool
in a subcritical condition during
handling and storage operations without
crediting the soluble boron in the SFP
water.
The licensee is authorized under
general license to construct and operate
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44940-44942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4145]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-60]
Carolina Power and Light Company; H.B. Robinson Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
also known as Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or licensee),
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The
licensee wants to use the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) NUHOMS Storage
System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004 (CoC or Certificate)
Amendment No. 8 (24PTH DCS), to store spent nuclear fuel under a
general license in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
(ISFSI) associated with the operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), located in Darlington County,
South Carolina. The requested exemption would allow CP&L to use the TN
NUHOMS[supreg]-24PTH system with revised transfer cask/dry shielded
canister (TC/DSC) handling and lifting height specifications prior to
completion of the proposed TN NUHOMS CoC Amendment No. 8 rulemaking.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action would exempt
CP&L from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and enable CP&L to use the TN NUHOMS[supreg]-
24PTH cask design with modifications at HBRSEP2. These regulations
specifically require storage in casks approved under the provisions of
10 CFR Part 72 and compliance with the conditions set forth in the CoC
for each dry spent fuel storage cask used by an ISFSI general licensee.
The TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC provides requirements, conditions, and
operating limits in Attachment A, Technical Specifications. The
proposed action would exempt CP&L from the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 enabling the licensee to store fuel in the TN
NUHOMS[supreg]-24PTH DSC system prior to the effective date of the
final rule change for the Amendment No. 8 approving the issuance of
this amended CoC. The proposed action would also exempt CP&L from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) and 72.212(b(7) to allow
lifting and handling a loaded TC/DSC above the height limit in the
proposed Amendment No. 8. Specifically, the exemption would be from the
requirement to limit the lift height of a loaded TC/DSC to 80 inches
when outside the spent fuel pool building. In lieu of this requirement,
CP&L stated that the TC/DSC will not be lifted higher than 80 inches
when not being handled by devices that meet the existing 10 CFR Part 50
license heavy load requirements.
Additionally, TN identified an issue in the proposed Amendment No.
8 CoC that resulted in a need for clarification to the proposed
technical specifications in regard to thermal loading patterns and
transit times for the 24PTH DSC. CP&L stated that a limit of 1.3
kilowatts decay heat level per fuel assembly will
[[Page 44941]]
be imposed to ensure cask loadings are bounded by the analyses
supporting the proposed Amendment No. 8. Further, the NRC staff
identified an issue in the proposed Amendment No. 8 CoC related to the
potential for air (oxygen) to come in contact with spent fuel during
DSC draining and vacuum drying evolutions. CP&L committed to
implementing procedural controls to ensure that (1) only nitrogen or
helium is used for blowdown during vacuum drying evolutions, and (2)
when draining water from the DSC at or below the level of the fuel
cladding, a nitrogen cover will be used. CP&L requested that the
exemptions remain in effect for 90 days following the effective date of
the final rule change to 10 CFR 72.214 to incorporate TN CoC No. 1004,
Amendment No. 8. The proposed action would allow CP&L to use the -24PTH
system as described in the TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC amendment requests
currently under staff review and subject to the commitments made by
CP&L with respect to the issues that have been identified in the
proposed CoC for TN NUHOMS[supreg] Amendment No. 8.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request
for exemption dated June 13, 2005, as supplemented July 20, 2005.
Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action is needed because
CP&L plans to initiate the transfer of the HBRSEP2 spent fuel pool
contents to the ISFSI in August 2005. The fuel transfer campaign was
scheduled to begin in late July 2005. The licensee has planned its dry
fuel campaign to support the HBRSEP2 Refuel Outage 23 (RO-23),
currently scheduled to begin on September 17, 2005. The licensee stated
that the exemption is requested to maintain the ability to offload a
full core of 157 fuel assemblies upon restart from RO-23 in October
2005.
Additionally, if no fuel is transferred to dry storage prior to the
start of RO-23, there would be insufficient space in the spent fuel
pool for the 56 new fuel assemblies that will be loaded into the
reactor core during RO-23. This would complicate the fuel handling
evolutions required for core reload during the outage. The proposed
action is necessary because the 10 CFR 72.214 rulemaking to implement
the TN NUHOMS[supreg] CoC Amendment No. 8 is not projected for
completion until late Fall 2005, which will not support the HBRSEP2
fuel transfer and dry cask storage loading schedule.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has completed
its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there will be
no significant environmental impact if the exemptions are granted. The
staff reviewed the analyses provided in the TN NUHOMS amendment
applications addressing the NUHOMS[supreg] -24PTH, -32PT, and -24PHB
systems. Included in those applications were TC/DSC lifting and
handling height technical specification revisions. The staff has
completed Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) associated with reviews of
the applications. The SER for the TN NUHOMS[supreg] -24PTH system
documenting the staff's safety findings and conclusions was published
in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005. The SER documenting the
staff's safety finding associated with the lifting and handling height
restriction revision was included as an enclosure to the letter to U.
B. Chopra, dated March 30, 2005.
The thermal loading pattern issue identified by TN was reviewed by
the staff and found to be acceptable, with a 1.3 kW per assembly decay
heat limit. The staff-identified issue regarding spent fuel in an
oxidizing environment was reviewed and found acceptable provided the
spent fuel environment for short term operations, draining and vacuum
drying, is limited to an inert atmosphere (nitrogen or helium). The
staff agrees that both CP&L commitments, regarding the decay heat limit
per fuel assembly and the limiting of blowdown and draining evolutions
to an environment of nitrogen or helium, will maintain safety regarding
fuel loading and transfer operations. The NRC concludes that there is
reasonable assurance that the proposed exemptions have no impact on
off-site doses.
The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS[supreg]
system was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Final Rule to add the TN Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal
Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel to the list of
approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (59 FR 65898, dated
December 22, 1994). The potential environmental impact of using the
NUHOMS[supreg] -24PTH system was initially presented in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the direct final rule to add the
24PTH system to the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] system, Amendment No. 8
(70 FR 29931, dated May 25, 2005). The TN -24PTH, -32PT, and -24PHB
systems do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents,
no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be
released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational
or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant
radiological environmental 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
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: Since there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, alternatives
with equal or greater environmental impact were not evaluated. As an
alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action. Denial of the exemption would result in no change in
current environmental impact.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: This exemption request was
discussed with Mr. Henry Porter, Assistant Director of the Division of
Waste Management, Department of Health and Environmental Control, for
the State of South Carolina, on July 13, and July 27, 2005. He stated
that the State had no comments on the technical aspects of the
exemption. The NRC staff has determined that a consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the
proposed action 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 further consultation is required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
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 Environmental Assessment, the Commission finds that
the proposed action of granting the exemption from specific provisions
of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR
72.214, to allow CP&L to use a modified version of the proposed CoC No.
1004, Amendment No. 8, subject to conditions, will not significantly
impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement for
the proposed exemption is not warranted.
[[Page 44942]]
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,''
final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action are
publically available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The request for
exemption dated June 13, 2005, and July 20, 2005, was docketed under 10
CFR Part 72, Docket No. 72-60. 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 29th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-4145 Filed 8-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
