Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 36134-36135 [E8-14315]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36134
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices
request for hearing shall not stay the
immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated this 13th day of June 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–14317 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–305]
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.;
Kewaunee Power Station;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section
50.90, for Facility Operating License No.
DPR–43, issued to Dominion Energy
Kewaunee, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of the Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), located in Kewaunee
County, Wisconsin. 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 revise the
facility operating license by removing
condition 2.C(5), ‘‘Fuel Burnup,’’ which
had limited the peak rod average
burnup to 60 gigawatt-days per metric
ton urnanium (GWD/MTU) until
completion of an NRC environmental
assessment supporting an increased
limit. The proposed action would allow
an increase of the maximum rod average
burnup to as high as 62 GWD/MTU. The
licensee has procedures in place to
ensure that maximum rod burnup will
not exceed 62 GWD/MTU.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
July 2, 2007.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action to delete the
license condition for fuel burnup would
allow a higher maximum rod average
burnup of 62 GWD/MTU, which would
allow for more effective fuel
management. If the amendment is not
approved, the licensee will not be
provided the opportunity to increase
maximum rod average burnup to as high
as 62 GWD/MTU and allow fuel
management flexibility.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:04 Jun 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
In this environmental assessment
regarding the impacts of the use of
extended burnup fuel beyond 60 GWD/
MTU, the Commission is relying on the
results of the updated study conducted
for NRC by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL), entitled
‘‘Environmental Effects of Extending
Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU’’
(NUREG/CR–6703, PNNL–13257,
January 2001). Environmental impacts
of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/MTU
were evaluated in the study, but some
aspects of the review were limited to
evaluating the impacts of the extended
burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU because of
the need for additional data on the effect
of extended burnup on gap release
fractions. All the aspects of the fuelcycle were considered during the study,
from mining, milling, conversion,
enrichment and fabrication through
normal reactor operation,
transportation, waste management, and
storage of spent fuel.
The amendment would allow KPS to
extend lead rod average burnup to 62
GWD/MTU. The NRC staff has
completed its evaluation of the
proposed action and concludes that
such changes would not adversely affect
plant safety, and would have no adverse
affect on the probability of any accident.
For the accidents that involve damage or
melting of the fuel in the reactor core,
fuel rod integrity has been shown to be
unaffected by extended burnup under
consideration; therefore, the probability
of an accident will not be affected. For
the accidents in which core remains
intact, the increased burnup may
slightly change the mix of fission
products that could be released in the
event of a serious accident, but because
the radionuclides contributing most to
the dose are short-lived, increased
burnup would not have an effect on the
consequences of a serious accident
beyond the previously evaluated
accident scenarios. Increases in
projected consequences of postulated
accidents associated with fuel burnup
up to 62 GWD/MTU are not considered
significant, and remain well below
regulatory limits.
Regulatory limits on radiological
effluent releases are independent of
burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR
50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
50 ensure that any release of gaseous,
liquid or solid radiological effluents to
unrestricted areas is kept ‘‘As Low As is
Reasonably Achievable.’’ Therefore,
NRC staff concludes that during routine
operations, there will be no significant
increase in the amount of gaseous
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radiological effluents released into the
environment as a result of the proposed
action, nor will there be a significant
increase in the amount of liquid
radiological effluents or solid
radiological effluents released into the
environment.
The proposed action will not change
normal plant operating conditions. No
changes are expected in the fuel
handling, operational or storing
processes. There will be no significant
changes in radiation levels during these
evolutions. No significant increase in
the allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure is
expected to occur.
The use of extended irradiation will
not change the potential environmental
impacts of incident-free transportation
of spent nuclear fuel or the accident
risks associated with spent fuel
transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5
years after being discharged from the
reactor. The PNNL report for the NRC
(NUREG/CR–6703, January 2001),
concluded that doses associated with
incident-free transportation of spent fuel
with burnup to 75 GWD/MTU are
bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR
51.52, Table S–4 for all regions of the
country, based on the dose rates from
the shipping casks being maintained
within regulatory limits. Increased fuel
burnup will decrease the annual
discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool,
which will postpone the need to remove
spent fuel from the pool.
NUREG/CR–6703 determined that no
increase in environmental effects of
spent fuel transportation accidents are
expected as a result of increasing fuel
burnup to 75 GWD/MTU.
The proposed action does not affect
non-radiological plant effluents, and no
changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or on endangered and/or
threatened species and their habitats are
expected. The proposed action does not
involve any historical or archaeological
sites.
The proposed action will not change
the method of generating electricity or
the method of handling any influents
from the environment or nonradiological effluents to the
environment. Therefore, no changes or
different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as
a result of this amendment.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. For more detailed information
regarding the environmental impacts of
extended fuel burnup, please refer to the
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices
study conducted by PNNL for the NRC,
entitled ‘‘Environmental Effects of
Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/
MTU’’ (NUREG/CR–6073, PNL–13257,
January 2001, ADAMS Accession No.
ML010310298). The details of the staff’s
safety evaluation will be provided in the
amendment that will be issued as part
of the letter to the licensee approving
the amendment.
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 Kewaunee
Power Station, dated December 1972.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on June 12, 2008, the staff consulted
with the Wisconsin State official, Mr.
Jeff Kitsembel, of the Public Service
Commission, 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 July 2, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML071860075). 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 O1 F21, 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.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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:04 Jun 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of
June 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Justin C. Poole,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–14315 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Notice of Issuance of Regulatory Guide
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance and
Availability of Regulatory Guide 6.4,
Revision 3.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Orr, Regulatory Guide
Development Branch, Division of
Engineering, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–
6373 or e-mail to Mark.Orr@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision
to an existing guide in the agency’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public information such
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the agency’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 6.4,
‘‘Verification of Containment Properties
of Sealed Radioactive Sources,’’ was
issued with a temporary identification
as Draft Regulatory Guide DG–6005.
This guide directs the reader to the type
of information acceptable to the NRC
staff to evaluate and verify the
containment properties of sealed
radioactive sources. The NRC licenses
the manufacture and distribution of
devices containing radioactive
byproduct material under Title 10, Part
32, ‘‘Specific Domestic Licenses to
Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items
Containing Byproduct Material,’’ of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
Part 32). The regulations require, in
part, that each application for a specific
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36135
license to distribute devices containing
byproduct material include information
on procedures for prototype tests and
the results of such tests to demonstrate
that the source or device will maintain
its integrity during the most severe
conditions that are likely to be
encountered under normal or accidental
conditions of handling, storage, use, and
disposal of the sealed radioactive
source.
This regulatory guide endorses the
methods and procedures for evaluation
and verification of the containment
properties of sealed radioactive sources
contained in the current revision of
NUREG–1556, Volume 3, ‘‘Consolidated
Guidance about Materials Licenses:
Applications for Sealed Source and
Device Evaluation and Registration’’ as
a process that has been found acceptable
to the NRC staff for meeting the
regulatory requirements. Since the
publication of Revision 2 of Regulatory
Guide 6.4 in August 1980, the NRC has
revised the requirements for byproduct
material containments in 10 CFR Part 32
to implement a risk-informed,
performance-based approach to
regulation. NUREG–1556 incorporates
this revised approach.
II. Further Information
In January 2008, DG–6005 was
published with a public comment
period of 60 days from the issuance of
the guide. No comments were received
and the public comment period closed
on April 18, 2008. Electronic copies of
Regulatory Guide 6.4, Revision 3 are
available through the NRC’s public Web
site under ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/.
In addition, regulatory guides are
available for inspection at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), which is
located at Room O–1F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852–2738. The
PDR’s mailing address is USNRC PDR,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. The PDR
can also be reached by telephone at
(301) 415–4737 or (800) 397–4209, by
fax at (301) 415–3548, and by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are not
copyrighted, and NRC approval is not
required to reproduce them.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day
of June 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen C. O’Connor,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development
Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E8–14314 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36134-36135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14315]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-305]
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.90, for Facility Operating
License No. DPR-43, issued to Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (the
licensee), for operation of the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS), located
in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. 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 revise the facility operating license by
removing condition 2.C(5), ``Fuel Burnup,'' which had limited the peak
rod average burnup to 60 gigawatt-days per metric ton urnanium (GWD/
MTU) until completion of an NRC environmental assessment supporting an
increased limit. The proposed action would allow an increase of the
maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62 GWD/MTU. The licensee has
procedures in place to ensure that maximum rod burnup will not exceed
62 GWD/MTU.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated July 2, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action to delete the license condition for fuel burnup
would allow a higher maximum rod average burnup of 62 GWD/MTU, which
would allow for more effective fuel management. If the amendment is not
approved, the licensee will not be provided the opportunity to increase
maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62 GWD/MTU and allow fuel
management flexibility.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
In this environmental assessment regarding the impacts of the use
of extended burnup fuel beyond 60 GWD/MTU, the Commission is relying on
the results of the updated study conducted for NRC by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), entitled ``Environmental Effects
of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU'' (NUREG/CR-6703, PNNL-13257,
January 2001). Environmental impacts of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/
MTU were evaluated in the study, but some aspects of the review were
limited to evaluating the impacts of the extended burnup up to 62 GWD/
MTU because of the need for additional data on the effect of extended
burnup on gap release fractions. All the aspects of the fuel-cycle were
considered during the study, from mining, milling, conversion,
enrichment and fabrication through normal reactor operation,
transportation, waste management, and storage of spent fuel.
The amendment would allow KPS to extend lead rod average burnup to
62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed
action and concludes that such changes would not adversely affect plant
safety, and would have no adverse affect on the probability of any
accident. For the accidents that involve damage or melting of the fuel
in the reactor core, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected
by extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of
an accident will not be affected. For the accidents in which core
remains intact, the increased burnup may slightly change the mix of
fission products that could be released in the event of a serious
accident, but because the radionuclides contributing most to the dose
are short-lived, increased burnup would not have an effect on the
consequences of a serious accident beyond the previously evaluated
accident scenarios. Increases in projected consequences of postulated
accidents associated with fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU are not
considered significant, and remain well below regulatory limits.
Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent
of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR
Part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid or solid
radiological effluents to unrestricted areas is kept ``As Low As is
Reasonably Achievable.'' Therefore, NRC staff concludes that during
routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount
of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a
result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase
in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological
effluents released into the environment.
The proposed action will not change normal plant operating
conditions. No changes are expected in the fuel handling, operational
or storing processes. There will be no significant changes in radiation
levels during these evolutions. No significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure is
expected to occur.
The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential
environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear
fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if
the fuel is cooled for 5 years after being discharged from the reactor.
The PNNL report for the NRC (NUREG/CR-6703, January 2001), concluded
that doses associated with incident-free transportation of spent fuel
with burnup to 75 GWD/MTU are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR
51.52, Table S-4 for all regions of the country, based on the dose
rates from the shipping casks being maintained within regulatory
limits. Increased fuel burnup will decrease the annual discharge of
fuel to the spent fuel pool, which will postpone the need to remove
spent fuel from the pool.
NUREG/CR-6703 determined that no increase in environmental effects
of spent fuel transportation accidents are expected as a result of
increasing fuel burnup to 75 GWD/MTU.
The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or on endangered and/
or threatened species and their habitats are expected. The proposed
action does not involve any historical or archaeological sites.
The proposed action will not change the method of generating
electricity or the method of handling any influents from the
environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of this amendment.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. For more
detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of extended
fuel burnup, please refer to the
[[Page 36135]]
study conducted by PNNL for the NRC, entitled ``Environmental Effects
of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU'' (NUREG/CR-6073, PNL-13257,
January 2001, ADAMS Accession No. ML010310298). The details of the
staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the amendment that will
be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the
amendment.
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
Kewaunee Power Station, dated December 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 12, 2008, the staff
consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Mr. Jeff Kitsembel, of the
Public Service Commission, 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 July 2, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071860075).
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
O1 F21, 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.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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of June 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Justin C. Poole,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-14315 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
