Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 43572-43574 [2010-18236]

Download as PDF jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 43572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 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. The fuel storage and handling, radioactive waste, and other systems which may contain radioactivity are designed to assure adequate safety under normal conditions. 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. Based on the nature of the exemption, the proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historic and cultural resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the 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, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML010310298). The details of the NRC 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 NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ 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, or the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2—Final Report (NUREG–1437, Supplement 9), dated December 2002. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on June 16, 2010, the NRC staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Ms. SE Jenkins, of the South Carolina 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 staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff 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 29, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093140092). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://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 15th day of July 2010. 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. 2010–18241 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370; NRC– 2010–0259] Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire 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 an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–9 and Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–17, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire 1 and 2), respectively, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an environmental assessment documenting its findings. The NRC concluded that the proposed action would have no significant environmental impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses by removing a condition in Appendix B of the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for McGuire 1 and 2, which had limited the peak rod average burnup to 60 gigawatt-days per metric ton uranium (GWD/MTU) until completion of an NRC environmental assessment supporting an increased limit. The proposed action would allow E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM 26JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 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 October 29, 2009. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action to delete the license condition for fuel burnup is needed to 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 the 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 McGuire 1 and 2 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 effect 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 dose 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 Part 20, 10 CFR 50.36a, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 ensure that routine releases 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 would 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. The fuel storage and handling, radioactive waste, and other systems which may contain radioactivity are designed to assure adequate safety under normal conditions. 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 is PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43573 expected as a result of increasing fuel burnup to 75 GWD/MTU. Based on the nature of the exemption, the proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historic and cultural resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. 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 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, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML010310298). The details of the NRC 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 NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ 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 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, or the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2—Final Report (NUREG–1437, Supplement 8), dated December 2002. E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM 26JYN1 43574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on June 16, 2010, the NRC staff consulted with the North Carolina State officials, Mr. James Albright and Mr. William Jeffries, of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff 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 29, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093140092). 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 ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://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 15th day of July 2010. 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. 2010–18236 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–277; NRC–2010–0258] Exelon Generation Company, LLC; PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2; Opportunity for a Hearing, and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Order and notice of license amendment request, opportunity to comment, opportunity to request a hearing. AGENCY: Comments must be filed by August 25, 2010. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 24, 2010. ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC–2010–0258 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site http:// www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC–2010–0258. Comments may be submitted electronically through this Web site. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492– 3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492–3446. You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods: DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine, and have copied for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s PDR at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The application for amendment, dated May 27, 2010, contains Proprietary Information and, accordingly, those portions are being withheld from public disclosure. A redacted version of the application for amendment, dated May 27, 2010, is available electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML101480555. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0258. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hughey, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301–415–3204; fax number: 301–415– 2102; e-mail: John.Hughey@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR–44, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, (licensee) for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, located in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. The proposed amendment would revise the PBAPS, Unit 2, Technical Specification Section 2.1.1 to revise Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values. The SLMCPR is established to assure that at least 99.9% E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM 26JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43572-43574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18236]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 [Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; NRC-2010-0259]


Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire 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 an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-
9 and Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-17, issued to Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire 1 and 2), respectively, located 
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, in accordance with Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.90. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an environmental 
assessment documenting its findings. The NRC concluded that the 
proposed action would have no significant environmental impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise the Renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses by removing a condition in Appendix B of the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses for McGuire 1 and 2, which had limited the peak rod 
average burnup to 60 gigawatt-days per metric ton uranium (GWD/MTU) 
until completion of an NRC environmental assessment supporting an 
increased limit. The proposed action would allow

[[Page 43573]]

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 October 29, 2009.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action to delete the license condition for fuel burnup 
is needed to 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 the 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 McGuire 1 and 2 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 effect 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 dose 
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 Part 20, 10 CFR 50.36a, and 
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 ensure that routine releases 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 would 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. The fuel storage and handling, radioactive waste, 
and other systems which may contain radioactivity are designed to 
assure adequate safety under normal conditions. 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 is expected as a result of 
increasing fuel burnup to 75 GWD/MTU.
    Based on the nature of the exemption, the proposed action does not 
result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the 
quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No 
effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the 
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the 
Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air 
or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historic and cultural 
resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic 
conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of 
non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the 
proposed action. 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 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, Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 
ML010310298). The details of the NRC 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 NRC 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 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, or the Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2--Final Report (NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 8), dated December 2002.

[[Page 43574]]

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 16, 2010, the NRC 
staff consulted with the North Carolina State officials, Mr. James 
Albright and Mr. William Jeffries, of the North Carolina Department of 
Environment and Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact 
of the proposed action. The State officials had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC staff 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff 
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 29, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML093140092). 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 ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the 
NRC Web site, http://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 15th day of July 2010.

    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. 2010-18236 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P