Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 53813-53814 [05-17970]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Notices vessel that includes thick shield plugs at either end. To support the pressure increase structural design changes were made to the DSC to ensure that the confinement boundary for the spent nuclear fuel is maintained under the proposed design pressure limit of 100 psig for all specified normal operation, off-normal operation, and accident conditions. The staff has determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or property. No effluents are released from the ISFSI during operation and the proposed changes have no impact to DSC loading activities. Therefore, there is no significant change in the type or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. There is also no significant increase with regard to individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures because of the proposed action. There are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action because the NUHOMS–32P DSC includes design changes to ensure the confinement boundary for the spent nuclear fuel is maintained under the proposed design pressure limit of 100 psig. The amendment only affects the requirements associated with the loading of the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological 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 August 11, 2005, Richard McLean of the State of Maryland 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 VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:25 Sep 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted by CCNPP and changing the DSC design basis pressure limit 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 72–8. For further details with respect to this action, see the proposed license amendment dated May 16, 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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st of August, 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. 05–17971 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72–39] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant 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 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53813 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO or licensee), pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is using the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister System (NAC–MPC), Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, to store spent fuel under a general license in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) associated with the operation of the Haddam Neck Plant, located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. The requested exemption would allow CYAPCO to deviate from requirements of the NAC–MPC CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC– MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program. Specifically, the exemption would relieve the licensee from the requirement to develop training modules under its Systems Approach to Training (SAT) that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt CYAPCO from regulatory requirements to develop certain training. By letter dated June 1, 2005, the licensee requested exemptions from certain regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which require a general license to store spent fuel in a NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC– MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program. CoC No. 1025, Amendment 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC–MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires that a training program for the NAC–MPC System be developed under the general licensee’s SAT Program. Further, the training modules must include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of both the NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. By exempting the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this request, the licensee will not be required to develop training modules that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI. E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 53814 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Notices The Need for the Proposed Action Granting the requested exemptions will relieve the licensee of the requirement to develop training modules under the SAT that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System. Thus, the licensee will not incur the costs associated with this activity. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the licensee. The staff determined that not requiring the licensee to develop training modules including comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System, is an administrative change, and would have no significant impacts to the environment. Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would result from granting the requested exemptions. CYAPCO has stated that for activities associated with operation and maintenance of ISFSI structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are not important to safety, CYAPCO will provide training/instructions in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and CYAPCO approved procedures. NRC determined that requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI SSCs considered not-important-to-safety would not provide a commensurate increase in public safety associated with the costs. Therefore, allowing the licensee to develop these modules separately from its SAT does not impact public safety. The proposed action would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents released offsite, and there would be no increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The potential environmental impact of using the NAC–MPC System was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule to add the NAC–MPC System to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (65 FR 12444, dated March 9, 2000), as revised in Amendment No. 1 (66 FR 45749, dated August 30, 2001), in Amendment No. 2 (67 FR 11566, dated March 15, 2002), in Amendment No. 3 (68 FR 42570, dated July 18, VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:25 Sep 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 2003), and in Amendment No. 4 (69 FR 50053, dated August 13, 2004). 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. Alternatives to the Proposed Action Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts were not evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption request would have the same environmental impact as the proposed action. Agencies and Persons Consulted On July 6, 2005, the staff consulted with Mr. Michael Firsick of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Radiation, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. He had no comments. 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 NRC 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 and not requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 For further details with respect to this exemption request, see CYAPCO’s letter dated June 1, 2005. The exemption request was docketed under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72–39. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and 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/web-based.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raynard Wharton, Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 05–17970 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030–19526] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Elan Operations, Inc., Princeton, NJ Facility Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability. AGENCY: John Nicholson, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337–5236, fax (610) 337–5269; or by e-mail: jjn@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Elan Operations, Inc. (formerly Elan Pharmaceuticals and The Liposome Company), Materials License No. 29– 19918–01, to authorize release of its facility in Princeton, New Jersey for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53813-53814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17970]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-39]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant 
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 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 
Company (CYAPCO or licensee), pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 
specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is using the NAC Multi-Purpose 
Canister System (NAC-MPC), Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, to 
store spent fuel under a general license in an independent spent fuel 
storage installation (ISFSI) associated with the operation of the 
Haddam Neck Plant, located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. The 
requested exemption would allow CYAPCO to deviate from requirements of 
the NAC-MPC CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program. 
Specifically, the exemption would relieve the licensee from the 
requirement to develop training modules under its Systems Approach to 
Training (SAT) that includes comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt CYAPCO from regulatory 
requirements to develop certain training. By letter dated June 1, 2005, 
the licensee requested exemptions from certain regulatory requirements 
of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which 
require a general license to store spent fuel in a NRC-certified spent 
fuel storage cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. 
The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to deviate from the 
requirements in CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program.
    CoC No. 1025, Amendment 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for 
the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires that a 
training program for the NAC-MPC System be developed under the general 
licensee's SAT Program. Further, the training modules must include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of both 
the NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. By exempting the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 
72.214 for this request, the licensee will not be required to develop 
training modules that include comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI.

[[Page 53814]]

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Granting the requested exemptions will relieve the licensee of the 
requirement to develop training modules under the SAT that include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the 
ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System. Thus, the licensee will not incur 
the costs associated with this activity.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the 
licensee. The staff determined that not requiring the licensee to 
develop training modules including comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System, 
is an administrative change, and would have no significant impacts to 
the environment.
    Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would 
result from granting the requested exemptions. CYAPCO has stated that 
for activities associated with operation and maintenance of ISFSI 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are not important to 
safety, CYAPCO will provide training/instructions in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions and CYAPCO approved procedures. NRC 
determined that requiring the licensee to develop training modules 
under its SAT for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI SSCs 
considered not-important-to-safety would not provide a commensurate 
increase in public safety associated with the costs. Therefore, 
allowing the licensee to develop these modules separately from its SAT 
does not impact public safety.
    The proposed action would not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of 
effluents released offsite, and there would be no increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    The potential environmental impact of using the NAC-MPC System was 
initially presented in the Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule 
to add the NAC-MPC System to the list of approved spent fuel storage 
casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (65 FR 12444, dated March 9, 2000), as revised 
in Amendment No. 1 (66 FR 45749, dated August 30, 2001), in Amendment 
No. 2 (67 FR 11566, dated March 15, 2002), in Amendment No. 3 (68 FR 
42570, dated July 18, 2003), and in Amendment No. 4 (69 FR 50053, dated 
August 13, 2004).
    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.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with 
the proposed action, alternatives with equal or greater environmental 
impacts were not evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, 
the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the 
exemption request would have the same environmental impact as the 
proposed action.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 6, 2005, the staff consulted with Mr. Michael Firsick of 
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 
Radiation, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
He had no comments. 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 NRC 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 and not requiring the 
licensee to develop training modules under its SAT that includes 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the 
ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC will not significantly impact 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 this exemption request, see 
CYAPCO's letter dated June 1, 2005. The exemption request was docketed 
under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72-39. The NRC maintains an Agencywide 
Documents Access and 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/web-based.html. If you do not have 
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-17970 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P