Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 52823-52824 [E9-24722]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
[NRC–2009–0453]. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
3. Fax comments to: Rulemaking and
Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at (301) 492–3446.
Requests for technical information
about DG–1199 may be directed to Mark
Blumberg at (301) 415–1083 or e-mail to
Mark.Blumberg@nrc.gov.
Comments would be most helpful if
received by December 11, 2009.
Comments received after that date will
be considered if it is practical to do so,
but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
Although a time limit is given,
comments and suggestions in
connection with items for inclusion in
guides currently being developed or
improvements in all published guides
are encouraged at any time.
Electronic copies of DG–1199 are
available through the NRC’s public Web
site under Draft Regulatory Guides in
the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of
the NRC’s Electronic Reading
Room at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies
are also available in ADAMS (https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html),
under Accession No. ML090960464. In
addition, regulatory guides are available
for inspection at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
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) 397–4205, by
fax at (301) 415–3548, and by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are not
copyrighted, and Commission approval
is not required to reproduce them.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of October 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrea D. Valentin,
Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch,
Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E9–24719 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:35 Oct 13, 2009
Jkt 220001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0452; Docket Nos. 50–413 and
50–414]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Facility
Operating License No. NPF–35 and
Facility Operating License No. NPF–52,
issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(the licensee), for operation of the
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
(Catawba 1 and 2), located in York
County, South Carolina, in accordance
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. Therefore,
as required by 10 CFR part 51, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by
removing and updating portions of the
TSs which are outdated or are obsolete
including footnotes and references. The
proposed changes are editorial or
administrative in nature as they update
the current TSs to reflect changes
previously approved by the NRC.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
October 8, 2008, as supplemented by
letter dated May 5, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
update the TSs and remove out of date
and obsolete information.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no
environmental impacts associated with
granting the subject license amendment
updating the TSs to remove outdated or
obsolete information. The details of the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided in a letter to the licensee upon
approval of the license amendment.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52823
any effluent released offsite. 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 any foreseeable
impacts to land, air, or water resources,
including impacts to biota. In addition,
there are also no known socioeconomic
or environmental justice impacts
associated with such proposed action.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG–
0921, dated January 1983 and Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (NUREG–1437, Supplement
9) dated December 2002.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On September 23, 2009, the NRC staff
consulted with the South Carolina State
official, Mr. Michael Gandy, Department
of Health and Environmental Control,
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. No substantial
changes to the facility or its operation
are associated with the proposed license
amendment. 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 October 8, 2008, as supplemented
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
52824
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices
by letter dated May 5, 2009. 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 7th day
of October 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon Thompson,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–24722 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0451; Docket No. 50–220]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
63 issued to Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, LLC (the licensee) for operation
of Nine Mile Point, Unit No. 1 (NMP1)
located in Oswego, NY.
The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS)
sections 3.2.7.1 and 4.2.7.1, ‘‘Primary
Coolant System Pressure Isolation
Valves,’’ to incorporate requirements
that are consistent with section 3.4.5 of
the Improved Standard TSs, NUREG–
1433, Revision 3. The proposed TS
changes include the addition of
applicable reactor operating conditions,
addition of actions to be taken when
pressure isolation valve (PIV) leakage is
not within limit, relocation of the PIV
leakage limit criterion from TS Table
3.2.7.1 to Specification 4.2.7.1.a,
replacement of the existing PIV leakage
test frequencies with a reference to the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:35 Oct 13, 2009
Jkt 220001
Inservice Testing Program, and deletion
of TS Table 3.2.7.1, ‘‘Primary Coolant
System Pressure Isolation Valves.’’ The
list of PIVs would be relocated from TS
Table 3.2.7.1 to the NMP1 Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report, consistent
with the guidance in Generic Letter (GL)
91–08, ‘‘Removal of Component Lists
from Technical Specifications.’’
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) Involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves
changes to the TS requirements that apply to
reactor coolant system (RCS) PIVs. No
physical plant changes are involved. PIVs
isolate the boundary between the high
pressure RCS and connected low pressure
piping systems. The TS requirements are
intended to detect PIV degradation that has
the potential to cause a loss of coolant
accident (LOCA) outside of containment due
to the failure of low pressure portions of
systems connected to the RCS.
The proposed changes to the TS
requirements are consistent with NUREG–
1433, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications,
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ and will
continue to ensure that excessive leakage
through these valves is properly identified
and resolved. Testing in accordance with the
IST [Inservice Testing] Program will continue
to detect PIV leakage in excess of the
established limits, which are not being
changed. When these limits are exceeded,
required actions will initiate appropriate
activities to minimize the impact of the
leakage. These actions will not adversely
impact nuclear safety because the flow paths
will be sufficiently isolated, the period of
time without redundant isolation capability
will be appropriately limited, and the
probability of a second valve failing during
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this time period is low. Thus, the proposed
amendment does not result in operation that
would make an accident more likely to occur,
and does not alter assumptions relative to
mitigation of a previously evaluated accident.
Relocation of the list of PIVs from the TS
to a licensee-controlled document (the
UFSAR) in accordance with the guidance in
GL 91–08 is an administrative change that
does not alter the TS requirements that are
applicable to the PIVs. Based on the above
discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves
changes to the TS requirements that apply to
RCS PIVs. These changes to the TS
requirements are consistent with NUREG–
1433. The proposed changes do not involve
a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The changes also do not alter
the design function of the PIVs and do not
adversely affect the ability of the PIVs to
perform their design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves
changes to the TS requirements that apply to
RCS PIVs. No physical plant changes are
involved. PIVs isolate the boundary between
the high pressure RCS and connected low
pressure piping systems. The revised TS PIV
requirements will continue to ensure that
excessive leakage through these valves is
properly identified and resolved, such that a
LOCA outside of containment due to the
failure of low pressure portions of systems
connected to the RCS will be no more likely
to occur. Thus, the proposed amendment will
not result in a design basis or safety limit
being exceeded or altered.
Based on the above discussion, it is
concluded that the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52823-52824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24722]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0452; Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 and
Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2 (Catawba 1 and 2), located in York County, South Carolina, in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
part 50. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR part 51, the NRC performed an
environmental assessment. Based on the results of the environmental
assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs)
by removing and updating portions of the TSs which are outdated or are
obsolete including footnotes and references. The proposed changes are
editorial or administrative in nature as they update the current TSs to
reflect changes previously approved by the NRC.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 8, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated May
5, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to update the TSs and remove out of
date and obsolete information.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with
granting the subject license amendment updating the TSs to remove
outdated or obsolete information. The details of the NRC staff's safety
evaluation will be provided in a letter to the licensee upon approval
of the license amendment.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water
resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are also no
known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with
such proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0921, dated January 1983
and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1437,
Supplement 9) dated December 2002.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On September 23, 2009, the NRC staff consulted with the South
Carolina State official, Mr. Michael Gandy, Department of Health and
Environmental Control, 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. No substantial changes to the
facility or its operation are associated with the proposed license
amendment. 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 October 8, 2008, as supplemented
[[Page 52824]]
by letter dated May 5, 2009. 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 7th day of October 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon Thompson,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-24722 Filed 10-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
