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
<![CDATA[
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 https://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
https://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
