Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment And Finding of No Significant Impact, 43571-43572 [2010-18241]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
43571
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION AND SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued
Day
Event/activity
205 ...........
Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or reliability determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv).
If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse
determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI and/or SGI consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more than 25
days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later
deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
A ..............
A + 3 ........
A + 28 ......
A + 53 ......
A + 60 ......
>A + 60 ....
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.
[FR Doc. 2010–18221 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414; NRC–
2010–0260]
The Need for the Proposed Action
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 Renewed
Facility Operating License No. NPF–35
and Renewed 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), respectively, located in York County,
South 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
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 Catawba 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 an
increase of the maximum rod average
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The amendment would allow
Catawba 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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
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, 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 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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43571-43572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18241]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414; NRC-2010-0260]
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 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35
and Renewed 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), respectively, located
in York County, South 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 Catawba 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 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 Catawba 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 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 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
[[Page 43572]]
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 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
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 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, 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 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
