Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 51853-51854 [E5-4750]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices filed in accordance with the Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner’s interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:33 Aug 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51853 verification number is (301) 415–1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 S. Church Street, Mail Code—PB05E, Charlotte, NC 28201– 1006, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated [date], which is available for public inspection at the Commission’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http:// 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 by telephone at 1–800– 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5–4749 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Subsection (b)(1) of Section 50.68, ‘‘Criticality accident requirements,’’ of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee), E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1 51854 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CCNPP), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in a CCNPP spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated December 21, 2004, as supplemented on May 31, 2005. The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the original request. The Need for the Proposed Action Under 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) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are met. The licensee has stated that the NRC has previously established five criteria that, if met, would satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). The details of the 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. 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 VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:33 Aug 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 non-radiological environmental 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. 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, http:// 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 by telephone at 1–800– 397–4209 or (301) 415–4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5–4750 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 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 the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated April 1984, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG–1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on August 24, 2005, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, R. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. August 24, 2005. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated December 31, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated May 31, 2005. Documents may be viewed, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [Release No. 34–52327; File No. SR–ISE– 2004–33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Relating to the Entry of Complex Orders Into the Facilitation Mechanism I. Introduction On November 16, 2004, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (‘‘ISE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend ISE Rule 716(d), ‘‘Facilitation Mechanism,’’ to allow Electronic Access Members (‘‘EAMs’’) to enter complex orders into the ISE’s facilitation mechanism. On December 14, 2004, the ISE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 12, 2005.4 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 Amendment No. 1 made a technical revision to the text of the proposed rule change. 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51968 (July 1, 2005), 70 FR 40089. 2 17 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51853-51854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4750]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318]


Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Subsection (b)(1) of Section 50.68, 
``Criticality accident requirements,'' of part 50 of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for Renewed Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 
Plant, Inc. (the licensee),

[[Page 51854]]

for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (CCNPP), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as 
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear 
fuel in a 10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is 
in a CCNPP spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with 
the licensee's application dated December 21, 2004, as supplemented on 
May 31, 2005. The supplemental letter provided clarifying information 
that did not expand the scope of the original request.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Under 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) 
allows licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10 
CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary to achieve the 
underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are met. The 
licensee has stated that the NRC has previously established five 
criteria that, if met, would satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to 
satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). The details of 
the 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. 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 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental 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 
the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated April 
1984, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-
1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 24, 2005, the staff 
consulted with the Maryland State official, R. McLean of the Maryland 
Department of Natural Resources, 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, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 31, 2004, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 31, 2005. Documents may be viewed, 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, http://
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 by telephone at 1-800-
397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4750 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P