Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 52356-52357 [2011-21340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52356
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices
Accession Number: ML102100236).
This draft NUREG–1482, Revision 2,
incorporates all the public comments
received for draft NUREG–1946, because
based on public comments, NUREG–
1482, Revision 1, is revised and updated
instead of issuing the new NUREG–
1946. The NRC staff evaluation and
resolution of public comments for draft
NUREG–1946, including Inservice
Testing Owner Group comments, are
documented in ADAMS Accession
Number: ML112092872. Most of the
draft NUREG–1946 included in the
main text of draft NUREG–1482,
Revision 2, Appendix A, to this
NUREG–1482, Revision 2, contains
guidance provided in Revision 1 to
NUREG–1482 for pumps and valves that
has been updated for the development
of inservice testing programs at nuclear
power plants. Appendix B to this
NUREG contains guidance related to
inservice examination and testing of
dynamic restraints (snubbers), which is
included for the first time in the draft
NUREG–1482, Revision 2.
The guidelines and recommendations
provided in this NUREG and its
Appendices A and B do not supersede
the regulatory requirements specified in
10 CFR 50.55a. Further, this NUREG
does not authorize the use of
alternatives to, or grant relief from, the
ASME Code requirements for inservice
testing of pumps and valves, or
inservice examination and testing of
dynamic restraints (snubbers),
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
50.55a. In addition, the NUREG
discusses other inservice test program
topics such as the NRC process for
review of the OM Code, conditions on
the use of the OM Code, and
interpretations of the OM Code.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony C. McMurtray,
Chief, Component Performance and Testing
Branch, Division of Component Integrity,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–21357 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[NRC–2011–0188; Docket No. 50–315]
Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuance of an exemption
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 Aug 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
and an amendment to Renewed Facility
Operating License No. NPF–58 issued to
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (DCCNP–1),
located in Berrien County, Michigan, in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50,
§ 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR
51.21, the NRC performed an
environmental assessment documenting
its findings. The NRC concluded that
the proposed actions would have no
significant environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions would issue an
exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 regarding
fuel cladding material, and revise the
Technical Specifications document,
which is part of the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses, to permit use of
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel to a peak road
average burnup limit of 62 gigawattdays per metric ton uranium (GWD/
MTU).
The proposed actions are in
accordance with the licensee’s
application dated December 16, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions to issue an
exemption to the fuel cladding
requirement of 10 CFR 50.46, and to
amend the Technical Specifications to
permit use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
to a peak rod average burnup limit of 62
GWD/MTU would allow for more
effective fuel management. If the
exemption and amendment are not
approved, the licensee will not be
provided the opportunity to use
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel design with a
peak rod average burnup as high as 62
GWD/MTU; the licensee would thus
lose fuel management flexibility.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Actions
In this environmental assessment
regarding the impacts of the use of
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel with the
possible burnup up to 62 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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 and exemption
would allow DCCNP–1 to use
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel up to a burnup
limit of 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff
has completed its evaluation of the
proposed actions 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 by
fuel burnup to 62 GWD/MTU. For the
accidents in which the reactor 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 consequences of previously
evaluated accident scenarios. Thus,
there will be no significant increase in
projected dose consequences of
postulated accidents associated with
fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, and
doses will 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, the 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 actions, nor will there be a
significant increase in the amount of
liquid radiological effluents or solid
radiological effluents released into the
environment.
The proposed actions will not change
normal plant operating conditions (i.e.,
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
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices
conditions. There will be no significant
changes in radiation levels during these
evolutions, and no significant increase
in the allowable individual or
cumulative occupational radiation
exposure is expected to occur.
The use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
with a burnup limit of 62 GWD/MTU
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. A 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
bound 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
amendment, the proposed actions do
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 actions.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
actions.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 Aug 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
(ADAMS) Accession No.
ML010310298). The details of the NRC
staff’s Safety Evaluation will be issued
concurrently with the amendment.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Actions
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. Thus,
the environmental impacts of the
proposed actions and the alternative
action are similar.
52357
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of August, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–21340 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–278; NRC–2011–0178]
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 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, or the
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Regarding Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2—
Final Report (NUREG–1437,
Supplement 20), dated May 2005.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing and
Order Imposing Procedures for
Document Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on July 14, 2011, the NRC staff
consulted with the Michigan State
official regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State
officials had no comments.
AGENCY:
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed actions 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 actions, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of license amendment
request, opportunity to comment,
opportunity to request a hearing, and
Commission order.
Submit comments by September
21, 2011. A request for a hearing must
be filed by October 21, 2011. Any
potential party as defined in Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) 2.4 who believes access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and/or Safeguards
Information is necessary to respond to
this notice must request document
access by September 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2011–0178 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, https://
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
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52356-52357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0188; Docket No. 50-315]
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption and an amendment to Renewed
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58 issued to Indiana Michigan Power
Company (the licensee), for operation of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1 (DCCNP-1), located in Berrien County, Michigan, in accordance
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50,
Sec. 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an
environmental assessment documenting its findings. The NRC concluded
that the proposed actions would have no significant environmental
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions would issue an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46
regarding fuel cladding material, and revise the Technical
Specifications document, which is part of the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses, to permit use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel to a peak
road average burnup limit of 62 gigawatt-days per metric ton uranium
(GWD/MTU).
The proposed actions are in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 16, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions to issue an exemption to the fuel cladding
requirement of 10 CFR 50.46, and to amend the Technical Specifications
to permit use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel to a peak rod average burnup
limit of 62 GWD/MTU would allow for more effective fuel management. If
the exemption and amendment are not approved, the licensee will not be
provided the opportunity to use Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel design with a
peak rod average burnup as high as 62 GWD/MTU; the licensee would thus
lose fuel management flexibility.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions
In this environmental assessment regarding the impacts of the use
of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel with the possible burnup up to 62 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 and exemption would allow DCCNP-1 to use Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ fuel up to a burnup limit of 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff has
completed its evaluation of the proposed actions 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 by fuel burnup to 62 GWD/MTU. For the accidents in which the
reactor 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 consequences of
previously evaluated accident scenarios. Thus, there will be no
significant increase in projected dose consequences of postulated
accidents associated with fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, and doses will
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, the 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 actions, nor will there be
a significant increase in the amount of liquid radiological effluents
or solid radiological effluents released into the environment.
The proposed actions will not change normal plant operating
conditions (i.e., 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
[[Page 52357]]
conditions. There will be no significant changes in radiation levels
during these evolutions, and no significant increase in the allowable
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure is expected to
occur.
The use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel with a burnup limit of 62 GWD/
MTU 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. A 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 bound 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 amendment, the proposed actions do 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 actions. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
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
issued concurrently with the amendment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Actions
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed
actions 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
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, or the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2--Final Report (NUREG-
1437, Supplement 20), dated May 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 14, 2011, the NRC
staff consulted with the Michigan State official 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 actions 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 actions, 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 11th day of August, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-21340 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
