Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 32377-32379 [E6-8650]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 2006 / Notices cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES the CTSs (i.e., to convert the CTSs to the ITSs). Emphasis was placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding. Some specifications in the CTSs would be relocated. Such relocated specifications would include those requirements which do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to the TS Bases document, the MNGP Updated Safety Analysis Report, the Core Operating Limits Report, the operational quality assurance plan, plant procedures, or other licensee-controlled documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-controlled documents does not eliminate them, but rather places them under more appropriate regulatory controls (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.59) to manage their implementation and future changes. action’’ alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the conversion to ITSs would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.The proposed action will not 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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other effect on the environment. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and, thus, the proposed action will not have any significant impact to the human environment. 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 June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 (two letters), May 4, and May 12, 2006, and the information provided to the NRC staff through the joint NRC-Monticello Nuclear Power Plant ITS Conversion Web page. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/ 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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no- VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:33 Jun 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 32377 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72–31] 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 MNGP dated November 1974. Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Agencies and Persons Consulted On April 18, 2006, the NRC staff consulted with Mr. Steve Rakow of the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official agreed with the conclusions of the NRC. Finding of No Significant Impact Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of May 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Terry A. Beltz, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III– 1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6–8651 Filed 6–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart W. Brown, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–8531; Fax number: (301) 415–8555; E-mail: swb1@nrc.gov. I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions to Yankee Atomic Electric Company (the licensee), pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is storing spent nuclear fuel under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFR part 72 in the NAC–MPC System at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located at the Yankee Atomic Electric Station in Rowe, Massachusetts. The requested exemptions would allow the licensee to deviate from requirements of the NAC– MPC Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC– MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. Specifically, the exemptions would relieve the licensee from the requirements to: (1) Develop training modules under its systems approach to training (SAT) program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System; and (2) submit an annual report ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).’’ II. Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action is to exempt the licensee from regulatory requirements to develop certain training and submit an annual report. By letter dated January 9, 2006, the licensee requested exemptions E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 32378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 2006 / Notices 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 licensee to store spent fuel in an NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed exemptions would allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC–MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, 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. In addition, CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC–MPC System, Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program, Item c. requires an annual report to be submitted ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).’’ By exempting the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this request, the licensee will not be required to either develop training modules that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI or submit an annual report ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).’’ The proposed action before the NRC is whether to grant these exemptions under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.7. Need for the Proposed Action: The requirements of CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC–MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program impose regulatory obligations, with associated costs, that do not provide a commensurate increase in safety. Granting the requested exemptions will allow the licensee not to have to: (1) Develop training modules under the SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System; and (2) submit an annual report ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).’’ Thus, the licensee will not incur the costs associated with these activities. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:33 Jun 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 licensee and determined that not requiring the licensee to: (1) Develop training modules under its SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System; and (2) submit an annual report ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a)’’ are administrative changes, 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. NRC determined that requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT program for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI structures, systems, and components 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 program does not impact public safety. Also, NRC has determined that not requiring the licensee to submit an annual report specifying principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents does not impact public safety because the NAC–MPC System is a sealed and leak-tight spent fuel storage system. Thus, there should be no releases to the environment of either liquid or gaseous effluents from normal operation of the NAC–MPC System. The proposed action would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents that may be 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. Additionally the proposed action would have no significant non-radiological impacts. Alternative to the Proposed Action: The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny approval of these exemptions. Denial of these exemption requests would have the same environmental impact as the proposed action. Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC prepared this EA. No other sources were used. Further, The NRC 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 habitats. The NRC 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 required under section 106 of the PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 National Historic Preservation Act. Also, a draft copy of this EA was provided to the Massachusetts Radiation Control Program for review. The Massachusetts Radiation Control Program had no comments. Conclusions: The NRC has concluded that the proposed action of granting these exemptions and not requiring the licensee to develop certain training or submit an annual report will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. 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 granting exemptions from the specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not requiring the licensee to: (1) Develop training modules under its SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC–MPC System; and (2) submit an annual report ‘‘pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a),’’ will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement for these proposed exemptions is not warranted. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action, including the request for exemptions dated January 9, 2006, are publically available in the records component of NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at https:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 2006 / Notices 397–4209 or (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stewart W. Brown, Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6–8650 Filed 6–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500–1] In the Matter of Universal Medical Systems, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading June 1, 2006. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Universal Medical Systems, Inc. (n/k/a Moray Way Holdings, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10–SB registration statement on April 24, 1997. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the abovelisted company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 1, 2006, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 14, 2006. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06–5128 Filed 6–1–06; 11:37 am] BILLING CODE 8010–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES [Release No. 34–53880; File No. SR–Amex– 2006–51] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt an Options Licensing Fee for Options on Market Vectors-Gold Miners ExchangeTraded Fund I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Amex proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by adopting a per-contract license fee for the orders of specialists, registered options traders, firms, nonmember market makers, and brokerdealers (collectively, ‘‘Market Participants’’) in connection with options transactions on the shares of the Market Vectors-Gold Miners exchangetraded fund (symbol: GDX). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s Internet Web site https://www.amex.com, at the Exchange’s principal office, and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposal is to adopt a per-contract options licensing Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15:33 Jun 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). fee in connection with options on GDX. Amex represents that it plans to assess the proposed options licensing fee on members commencing May 22, 2006. The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain exchangetraded funds (‘‘ETFs’’) such as GDX. As a result, the Exchange is required to pay index license fees to third parties as a condition to the listing and trading of these ETF options. In many cases, the Exchange is required to pay a significant licensing fee to the index provider that may not be reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs associated with certain index licenses, the Exchange has recently established per-contract licensing fees for orders of Market Participants that are collected on each option transaction in certain designated products in which such Market Participant is a party.5 The purpose of the proposal, therefore, is to charge an options licensing fee in connection with options on the GDX. Specifically, Amex seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.05 per contract side for GDX options for Market Participant orders executed on the Exchange. In all cases, the fee would be charged only to the Exchange member through whom such order is placed. Amex represents that the proposed options licensing fees would allow the Exchange to recoup its costs in connection with the index license fees for the trading of GDX options. The fees would be collected on every Market Participant order executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that requiring the payment of a per-contract licensing fee in connection with GDX options by those Market Participants that benefit from the index license agreements is justified and consistent with the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that, in recent years, it has revised a number of its fees to better align Amex fees with the actual cost of delivering services and reduce Amex’s subsidization of such services. The Exchange believes that the implementation of this proposal is consistent with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies. Amex believes that these fees will help to allocate to those Market Participants engaging in transactions in GDX options a fair share of the related costs of offering such options for trading. The Exchange asserts that the proposal provides for an equitable 1 15 May 26, 2006. VerDate Aug<31>2005 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 19, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a selfregulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 32379 2 17 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005). E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32377-32379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8650]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-31]


Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart W. Brown, Senior Project 
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: (301) 415-8531; Fax number: (301) 415-8555; E-mail: 
swb1@nrc.gov.

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of exemptions to Yankee Atomic Electric Company (the 
licensee), pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR) 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 
72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is storing 
spent nuclear fuel under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFR 
part 72 in the NAC-MPC System at an independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) located at the Yankee Atomic Electric Station in 
Rowe, Massachusetts. The requested exemptions would allow the licensee 
to deviate from requirements of the NAC-MPC Certificate of Compliance 
(CoC) No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for 
the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, 
Radioactive Effluent Control Program. Specifically, the exemptions 
would relieve the licensee from the requirements to: (1) Develop 
training modules under its systems approach to training (SAT) program 
that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and 
maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and (2) submit 
an annual report ``pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).''

II. Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action is to exempt 
the licensee from regulatory requirements to develop certain training 
and submit an annual report. By letter dated January 9, 2006, the 
licensee requested exemptions

[[Page 32378]]

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 
licensee to store spent fuel in an NRC-certified spent fuel storage 
cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed 
exemptions would allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in 
CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the 
NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, 
Radioactive Effluent Control Program.
    CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, 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. In addition, CoC No. 1025, Amendment 
3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section 
A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program, Item c. requires an annual 
report to be submitted ``pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 
50.36(a).'' By exempting the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 
72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this request, 
the licensee will not be required to either develop training modules 
that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and 
maintenance of the ISFSI or submit an annual report ``pursuant to 10 
CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).''
    The proposed action before the NRC is whether to grant these 
exemptions under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.7.
    Need for the Proposed Action: The requirements of CoC No. 1025, 
Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC 
System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive 
Effluent Control Program impose regulatory obligations, with associated 
costs, that do not provide a commensurate increase in safety. Granting 
the requested exemptions will allow the licensee not to have to: (1) 
Develop training modules under the SAT program that include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the 
ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and (2) submit an annual report 
``pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).'' Thus, the 
licensee will not incur the costs associated with these activities.
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has reviewed 
the exemption requests submitted by the licensee and determined that 
not requiring the licensee to: (1) Develop training modules under its 
SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation 
and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and (2) 
submit an annual report ``pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 
50.36(a)'' are administrative changes, 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. NRC determined that 
requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT 
program for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI structures, systems, 
and components 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 program does not impact public safety. Also, NRC has 
determined that not requiring the licensee to submit an annual report 
specifying principal radionuclides released to the environment in 
liquid and in gaseous effluents does not impact public safety because 
the NAC-MPC System is a sealed and leak-tight spent fuel storage 
system. Thus, there should be no releases to the environment of either 
liquid or gaseous effluents from normal operation of the NAC-MPC 
System.
    The proposed action would not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of 
effluents that may be 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. Additionally the proposed action would have no 
significant non-radiological impacts.
    Alternative to the Proposed Action: The alternative to the proposed 
action would be to deny approval of these exemptions. Denial of these 
exemption requests would have the same environmental impact as the 
proposed action.
    Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC prepared this EA. No other 
sources were used. Further, The NRC 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 
habitats. The NRC 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 required under section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act. Also, a draft copy of this EA 
was provided to the Massachusetts Radiation Control Program for review. 
The Massachusetts Radiation Control Program had no comments.
    Conclusions: The NRC has concluded that the proposed action of 
granting these exemptions and not requiring the licensee to develop 
certain training or submit an annual report will not significantly 
impact the quality of the human environment and does not warrant the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has 
been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

III. 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 
granting exemptions from the specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a), 
72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not requiring the 
licensee to: (1) Develop training modules under its SAT program that 
include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of 
the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and (2) submit an annual 
report ``pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a),'' will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, 
the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement for these 
proposed exemptions is not warranted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of 
NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding 
this proposed action, including the request for exemptions dated 
January 9, 2006, are publically available in the records component of 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These 
documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may also be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS 
or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-

[[Page 32379]]

397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart W. Brown,
Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-8650 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.