Yankee Atomic Electric Co.; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding the Request for Exemption, 36449-36451 [2010-15442]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
The NRC staff published a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS for the
proposed GLE Facility and to conduct a
scoping process in the Federal Register
on April 9, 2009 (74 FR 16237). The
NRC staff accepted comments through
June 8, 2009, and subsequently
extended the scoping comment period
(74 FR 36781) to August 31, 2009, to
accommodate public inspection of
GEH’s license application, submitted
June 26, 2009. The NRC staff issued a
Scoping Summary Report in November
2009 (ADAMS Accession Number:
ML093280734).
The NRC staff assessed the impacts of
the proposed action and its alternatives
on public and occupational health, air
quality, water resources, waste
management, geology and soils, noise,
ecology resources, land use,
transportation, historic and cultural
resources, visual and scenic resources,
socioeconomics, accidents, and
environmental justice. Additionally, the
DEIS analyzes and compares the costs
and benefits of the proposed action.
Based on the preliminary evaluation
in the DEIS, the NRC environmental
review staff has concluded that the
proposed action and associated
preconstruction activities would have
small effects on the physical
environment and human communities
with the exception of: (1) Short-term
moderate impacts associated with
increases in particulate matter released
to the air during road construction, land
clearing, and building construction, (2)
small to moderate impacts related to
increased traffic congestion near the site
entrance during preconstruction and
construction activities, (3) small to
moderate impacts on historic and
cultural resources associated with
potential facility expansion, (4) small to
moderate impacts on vegetation and
wildlife associated with preconstruction
activities, and (5) moderate but
temporary noise impacts during road
construction.
In addition to the action proposed by
GEH, the NRC staff addressed two
alternatives in the DEIS: A no-action
alternative and use of gas centrifuge
uranium enrichment technology. Under
the no-action alternative, NRC would
deny GEH’s application for a license to
construct and operate a laser-based
uranium enrichment facility. The noaction alternative serves as a baseline
for comparison of the potential
environmental impacts of granting the
license. Under the gas centrifuge
alternative, GEH would implement gas
centrifuge technology to enrich uranium
at the Wilmington Site instead of using
the proposed laser-based technology.
Because specific design information for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
a gas centrifuge facility at the
Wilmington Site does not exist, the gas
centrifuge alternative was evaluated
qualitatively and in less detail than the
proposed alternative and the no-action
alternative. Other alternatives (e.g.,
alternate locations, alternate
technologies) also were considered but,
for reasons discussed in the DEIS, were
eliminated from detailed analysis.
After weighing the impacts, costs, and
benefits of the proposed action and
comparing alternatives, the NRC staff, in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.71(e), set
forth its preliminary recommendation
regarding the proposed action. The NRC
staff preliminarily recommends that,
unless safety issues mandate otherwise,
the proposed action should be approved
(i.e., NRC should issue a license).
The DEIS is a preliminary analysis of
the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and its alternatives.
The Final EIS and any decision
documentation regarding the proposed
action will not be issued until public
comments on the DEIS have been
received and evaluated. Comments
received on the DEIS will be addressed
in the Final EIS. Notice of the
availability of the Final EIS will be
published in the Federal Register. The
Final EIS is scheduled to be completed
in February 2011.
The NRC staff in the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, Division
of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards is
currently completing the safety review
of GEH’s license application. The safety
review is currently scheduled for
completion in December 2010.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day
of June, 2010.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010–15445 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Dockets 50–029, 72–31; NRC–2010–0231]
Yankee Atomic Electric Co.; Yankee
Atomic Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; Issuance of
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Regarding the Request for Exemption
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36449
ACTION: Issuance of environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Goshen, Project Manager, Division of
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC. 20555.
Telephone: (301) 492–3325; fax number:
(301) 492–3342; e-mail:
john.goshen@nrc.gov.
Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption to Yankee
Atomic Electric Company (YAEC),
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the
specific provisions of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. YAEC is using
a dry cask storage system, the NAC–
MPC, Certificate of Compliance (CoC)
No. 1025, to store spent nuclear fuel
under a general license in an
independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) associated with the
decommissioned Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, located at Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC stores spent fuel in fifteen NAC–
MPC casks at the YAEC ISFSI, all
loaded under Amendment No. 3 to CoC
No. 1025. Under the current 10 CFR part
72 regulations, the general licensee is
bound by the terms and conditions of
the CoC under which it loaded a given
cask. Amendment No. 3 will remain in
effect for the casks at the YAEC ISFSI
until the NRC expressly approves the
application of changes authorized by a
later CoC amendment. Such an approval
is typically accomplished through a 10
CFR 72.7 exemption.
In its letter dated February 23, 2010,
YAEC stated that it intended to adopt
Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1025 for
all fifteen NAC–MPC casks at the site.
Implementation of Amendment No. 5 of
CoC No. 1025 to all fifteen NAC–MPC
casks will allow a visual alternative to
Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement 3.1.6.1 to
verify the operability of the concrete
cask heat removal system to maintain
safe storage conditions and will also
remove a specification in the CoC for
tamper indicating devices. The NRC
published the direct final rule for
Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025 on
May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26535), with an
effective date of July 24, 2007 (72 FR
38468, July 13, 2007).
In its letter of February 23, 2010,
YAEC did not request that the NRC
expressly approve implementation of
Amendment No. 5 to all fifteen NAC–
MPC casks at the site. YAEC, however,
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
36450
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
initiated an evaluation to determine if
the fifteen casks conform to the
requirements of Amendment No. 5 of
CoC No. 1025. The evaluation
concluded that all fifteen casks conform
to Amendment No. 5. Under the current
10 CFR part 72 regulations, a general
licensee, such as YAEC, is not
authorized to apply changes allowed by
a later CoC amendment (in this case,
Amendment No. 5) to a cask loaded
under an earlier CoC amendment (in
this case, Amendment No. 3) without
express prior approval of the NRC.1
Thus, in order to effectuate the
requested exemption, the NRC will have
to expand the scope of the requested
exemption to include the application of
the changes authorized by Amendment
No. 5 to the subject casks. The
applicable regulation, 10 CFR 72.7,
allows the NRC to grant exemptions
upon its own initiative.
In its letter of February 23, 2010,
YAEC also request the continuation of
two exemptions from the terms and
conditions of Amendment No. 5, similar
to two previously approved exemptions
from the terms and conditions of
Amendment No. 3. Specifically, YAEC
requests exemptions from the following
Amendment No. 5 requirements to: (1)
Develop training modules under the
Systems Approach to Training (SAT)
that include comprehensive instructions
for the operations and maintenance of
ISFSI systems, structures, and
components, as required by Appendix
A, Section A 5.1, ‘‘Training Program,’’
other than the NAC–MPC system; and
(2) submit an annual report pursuant to
10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR
50.36a(a)(2), per Appendix A, Section A
5.4, ‘‘Radioactive Effluent Control
Program,’’ that specifies the quantity of
each of the principal radionuclides
released to the environment in liquid
and gaseous effluents during the
previous 12 months of operation. YAEC
has asserted that the NAC–MPC system
is a sealed and leak-tight spent fuel
storage system and as such, there are no
effluent releases from the system.
In accordance with the requirements
in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has prepared
an environmental assessment for the
NRC action of approving or
disapproving an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),
72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and
72.214, which, if approved, will allow
YAEC to apply the changes authorized
by Amendment No. 5 to the fifteen
NAC–MPC casks loaded under
Amendment No. 3 at the YAEC ISFSI.
1 See Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 09–
006, dated September 15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML091970035).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
Based upon this environmental
assessment, the NRC has concluded that
a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate. The requests for
exemptions from the requirements of
Appendix A, Section A 5.4, Radioactive
Effluent Control Program, and Appendix
A,, Section A 5.1, Training Program are
categorically excluded from further
environmental review in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(B) and (E),
respectively.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action: The
NRC proposes to issue an exemption to
YAEC from the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214, thereby
allowing YAEC to apply the changes
authorized by Amendment No. 5 to CoC
No. 1025 to the fifteen NAC–MOC casks
at the YAEC ISFSI, which were loaded
under Amendment No. 3 to CoC No.
1025. Section 72.212(a)(2) provides that
the general license is limited to storage
of spent fuel in casks approved under
the provisions of 10 CFR part 72;
§ 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) requires the general
licensee to perform written evaluations,
prior to use of a cask, that establish that
the conditions set forth in the CoC have
been met; § 72.212(b)(7) requires that
the general licensee comply with the
terms and conditions of the CoC; and
§ 72.214 lists the cask designs that have
been approved by the NRC and are
available for use by general licensees
under the 10 CFR part 72 general
license. The NRC’s regulatory authority
to grant these exemptions is 10 CFR
72.7.
Need for the Proposed Action:
Implementation of the changes
authorized by Amendment No. 5 of CoC
No. 1025 to all fifteen NAC–MPC casks
at the YAEC ISFSI will allow a visual
alternative to Technical Specification
(TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.1.6.1 to
verify the operability of the concrete
cask heat removal system to maintain
safe storage conditions and will also
remove a specification in the CoC for
tamper indicating devices. These
changes will provide the applicant with
significant cost savings and flexibility
without any decrease in safety.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The NRC has reviewed
the exemption request submitted by
YAEC and has determined that allowing
YAEC to apply the changes authorized
by Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025
to the casks at the YAEC ISFSI, if
approved, would have no significant
impact to the environment. In
connection with the approval of
Amendment No. 5 of CoC 1025, the NRC
prepared and published in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Register a Finding of No Significant,
based upon an environmental
assessment, for the generic use of the
changes authorized by Amendment No.
5 (72 FR 26535, 26537, May 10, 2007).
Further, NRC has evaluated the
impact to public safety that would result
from granting the proposed action. The
approval of 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. Additionally the
proposed action would not involve any
construction or other ground disturbing
activities, would not change the
footprint of the existing ISFSI, and
would have no other significant nonradiological impacts. In this regard, and
as the ISFSI is located on previously
disturbed land, it is extremely unlikely
that approval of the proposed action
would create any significant impact on
the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the
vicinity of the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under
the Endangered Species Act, or to
essential fish habitat covered by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Similarly,
approval of the proposed action is not
the type of activity that has the potential
to cause effects on historic or cultural
properties, assuming such properties are
present at the site of the YAEC ISFSI.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since there is no significant
environmental impact associated with
the proposed action, any alternatives
with equal or greater environmental
impact are not evaluated. The
alternative to the proposed action would
be to deny approval of the exemption.
This alternative would have the same
environmental impact.
Given that there are no significant
differences in environmental impact
between the proposed action and the
alternative considered and that YAEC
has a legitimate need, the Commission
concludes that the preferred alternative
is to grant the requested exemption.
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 Commission finds that the proposed
action of granting an exemption from
the specific requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A),
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214, will not
significantly impact the quality of the
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices
human environment. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
Further Information
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of
NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ NRC records
and documents related to this action,
including the application for exemption
and supporting documentation are
available electronically at the NRC’s
Electronic Reading Room, at: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, you can access NRC’s
ADAMS, which provides text and image
files of NRC’s public documents. The
ADAMS Accession Number for the
application, dated February 23, 2010, is
ML100610320.
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents, for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day
of June, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric Benner,
Chief Licensing Branch, Division of Spent
Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010–15442 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
In accordance with the
requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
which provides opportunity for public
comment on new or revised data
collections, the Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed data collections.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s
estimate of the burden of the collection
of the information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden related to
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 24, 2010
Jkt 220001
the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Title and purpose of information
collection:
Certification Regarding Rights to
Unemployment Benefits; OMB 3220–
0079. Under Section 4 of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA),
an employee who leaves work
voluntarily is disqualified for
unemployment benefits unless the
employee left work for good cause and
is not qualified for unemployment
benefits under any other law. RRB Form
UI–45, Claimant’s Statement—
Voluntary Leaving of Work, is used by
the RRB to obtain the claimant’s
statement when it is indicated by the
claimant, the claimant’s employer, or
another source that the claimant has
voluntarily left work. The RRB proposes
no changes to Form UI–45.
Completion of Form UI–45 is required
to obtain or retain benefits. One
response is received from each
respondent. The completion time for
Form UI–45 is estimated at 15 minutes
per response. The RRB estimates that
approximately 2,900 responses are
received annually.
Additional Information or Comments:
To request more information or to
obtain a copy of the information
collection justification, forms, and/or
supporting material, please call the RRB
Clearance Officer at (312) 751–3363 or
send an e-mail request to
Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV. Comments
regarding the information collection
should be addressed to Patricia
Henaghan, Railroad Retirement Board,
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois
60611–2092 or send an e-mail to
Patricia.Henaghan@RRB.GOV. Written
comments should be received within 60
days of this notice.
Charles Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–15449 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Data Collection Available for Public
Comments and Recommendations
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Small Business
Administration’s intentions to request
approval on a new and/or currently
approved information collection.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36451
DATES: Submit comments on or before
August 24, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send all comments
regarding whether this information
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the function of the
agency, whether the burden estimates
are accurate, and if there are ways to
minimize the estimated burden and
enhance the quality of the collection, to
Kirk McElwain, Web Director, Office of
Communications and Public Liaison,
Small Business Administration, 409 3rd
Street, 7th Floor, Washington, DC
20416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk
McElwain, Office of Communications
and Public Liaison, 202–205–6175
kirk.mcelwain@sba.gov, or Curtis B.
Rich, Management Analyst, 202–205–
7030, curtis.rich@sba.gov.
SBA plans
to make its SBA.gov Web site more usercentric and focused on the needs of
small businesses and lenders. The SBA
would like the new site to incorporate
innovative and meaningful online tools
and features that effectively deliver
information and services to lenders and
small businesses, and enable businesses
to gain necessary access to the capital
and tools they need to drive economic
recovery and create and retain jobs. It
will enable entrepreneurs, small
business owners, and lenders to save
time and money by providing them with
tools to find information they need from
local, state, and federal government and
a forum to learn from their peers and
industry experts. The content and
services delivered to SBA.gov users will
be most valuable if they are relevant and
specific to their needs. Without regular
program information collections, SBA
would be unable to determine these
needs and efficiently meet them.
Furthermore, this information collection
will allow the SBA to deliver the
Agency’s core values of customer
service, accountability, and
transparency and carry out the intent of
Executive Orders 12862. Absence of the
information provided by willing
participants would impact SBA’s ability
to carry out its mission and the
mandates of Executive Order 12862, as
well as President Obama’s January 21,
2009, memorandum on transparency
and open government.
Title: ‘‘SBA Direct and SBA Online
Community.’’
Description of Respondents: On
Occasion.
Form Number: N/A.
Annual Responses: 710,000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36449-36451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15442]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Dockets 50-029, 72-31; NRC-2010-0231]
Yankee Atomic Electric Co.; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact Regarding the Request for Exemption
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goshen, Project Manager, Division
of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3325; fax number: (301) 492-3342; e-
mail: john.goshen@nrc.gov.
Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption to Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC),
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the specific provisions of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. YAEC is
using a dry cask storage system, the NAC-MPC, Certificate of Compliance
(CoC) No. 1025, to store spent nuclear fuel under a general license in
an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) associated with
the decommissioned Yankee Nuclear Power Station, located at Rowe,
Massachusetts. YAEC stores spent fuel in fifteen NAC-MPC casks at the
YAEC ISFSI, all loaded under Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1025. Under the
current 10 CFR part 72 regulations, the general licensee is bound by
the terms and conditions of the CoC under which it loaded a given cask.
Amendment No. 3 will remain in effect for the casks at the YAEC ISFSI
until the NRC expressly approves the application of changes authorized
by a later CoC amendment. Such an approval is typically accomplished
through a 10 CFR 72.7 exemption.
In its letter dated February 23, 2010, YAEC stated that it intended
to adopt Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1025 for all fifteen NAC-MPC casks
at the site. Implementation of Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025 to all
fifteen NAC-MPC casks will allow a visual alternative to Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.1.6.1 to verify the
operability of the concrete cask heat removal system to maintain safe
storage conditions and will also remove a specification in the CoC for
tamper indicating devices. The NRC published the direct final rule for
Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025 on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26535), with an
effective date of July 24, 2007 (72 FR 38468, July 13, 2007).
In its letter of February 23, 2010, YAEC did not request that the
NRC expressly approve implementation of Amendment No. 5 to all fifteen
NAC-MPC casks at the site. YAEC, however,
[[Page 36450]]
initiated an evaluation to determine if the fifteen casks conform to
the requirements of Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025. The evaluation
concluded that all fifteen casks conform to Amendment No. 5. Under the
current 10 CFR part 72 regulations, a general licensee, such as YAEC,
is not authorized to apply changes allowed by a later CoC amendment (in
this case, Amendment No. 5) to a cask loaded under an earlier CoC
amendment (in this case, Amendment No. 3) without express prior
approval of the NRC.\1\ Thus, in order to effectuate the requested
exemption, the NRC will have to expand the scope of the requested
exemption to include the application of the changes authorized by
Amendment No. 5 to the subject casks. The applicable regulation, 10 CFR
72.7, allows the NRC to grant exemptions upon its own initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 09-006, dated September
15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091970035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its letter of February 23, 2010, YAEC also request the
continuation of two exemptions from the terms and conditions of
Amendment No. 5, similar to two previously approved exemptions from the
terms and conditions of Amendment No. 3. Specifically, YAEC requests
exemptions from the following Amendment No. 5 requirements to: (1)
Develop training modules under the Systems Approach to Training (SAT)
that include comprehensive instructions for the operations and
maintenance of ISFSI systems, structures, and components, as required
by Appendix A, Section A 5.1, ``Training Program,'' other than the NAC-
MPC system; and (2) submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR
72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2), per Appendix A, Section A 5.4,
``Radioactive Effluent Control Program,'' that specifies the quantity
of each of the principal radionuclides released to the environment in
liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of
operation. YAEC has asserted that the NAC-MPC system is a sealed and
leak-tight spent fuel storage system and as such, there are no effluent
releases from the system.
In accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has
prepared an environmental assessment for the NRC action of approving or
disapproving an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),
72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214, which, if approved, will
allow YAEC to apply the changes authorized by Amendment No. 5 to the
fifteen NAC-MPC casks loaded under Amendment No. 3 at the YAEC ISFSI.
Based upon this environmental assessment, the NRC has concluded that a
Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The requests for
exemptions from the requirements of Appendix A, Section A 5.4,
Radioactive Effluent Control Program, and Appendix A,, Section A 5.1,
Training Program are categorically excluded from further environmental
review in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(B) and (E),
respectively.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action: The NRC proposes to issue an
exemption to YAEC from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),
72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214, thereby allowing YAEC to
apply the changes authorized by Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1025 to the
fifteen NAC-MOC casks at the YAEC ISFSI, which were loaded under
Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1025. Section 72.212(a)(2) provides that the
general license is limited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved
under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72; Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A)
requires the general licensee to perform written evaluations, prior to
use of a cask, that establish that the conditions set forth in the CoC
have been met; Sec. 72.212(b)(7) requires that the general licensee
comply with the terms and conditions of the CoC; and Sec. 72.214 lists
the cask designs that have been approved by the NRC and are available
for use by general licensees under the 10 CFR part 72 general license.
The NRC's regulatory authority to grant these exemptions is 10 CFR
72.7.
Need for the Proposed Action: Implementation of the changes
authorized by Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1025 to all fifteen NAC-MPC
casks at the YAEC ISFSI will allow a visual alternative to Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.1.6.1 to verify the
operability of the concrete cask heat removal system to maintain safe
storage conditions and will also remove a specification in the CoC for
tamper indicating devices. These changes will provide the applicant
with significant cost savings and flexibility without any decrease in
safety.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has reviewed
the exemption request submitted by YAEC and has determined that
allowing YAEC to apply the changes authorized by Amendment No. 5 of CoC
No. 1025 to the casks at the YAEC ISFSI, if approved, would have no
significant impact to the environment. In connection with the approval
of Amendment No. 5 of CoC 1025, the NRC prepared and published in the
Federal Register a Finding of No Significant, based upon an
environmental assessment, for the generic use of the changes authorized
by Amendment No. 5 (72 FR 26535, 26537, May 10, 2007).
Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would
result from granting the proposed action. The approval of 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. Additionally
the proposed action would not involve any construction or other ground
disturbing activities, would not change the footprint of the existing
ISFSI, and would have no other significant non-radiological impacts. In
this regard, and as the ISFSI is located on previously disturbed land,
it is extremely unlikely that approval of the proposed action would
create any significant impact on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in
the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected
species under the Endangered Species Act, or to essential fish habitat
covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Similarly, approval of the
proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to
cause effects on historic or cultural properties, assuming such
properties are present at the site of the YAEC ISFSI.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: Since there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact are not
evaluated. The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny
approval of the exemption. This alternative would have the same
environmental impact.
Given that there are no significant differences in environmental
impact between the proposed action and the alternative considered and
that YAEC has a legitimate need, the Commission concludes that the
preferred alternative is to grant the requested exemption.
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 Commission finds that
the proposed action of granting an exemption from the specific
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 72.212(b)(7),
and 72.214, will not significantly impact the quality of the
[[Page 36451]]
human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
Further Information
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' NRC
records and documents related to this action, including the application
for exemption and supporting documentation are available electronically
at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access NRC's ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS
Accession Number for the application, dated February 23, 2010, is
ML100610320.
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC's Public Document
Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents, for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of June, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric Benner,
Chief Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and
Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-15442 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
