Carolina Power & Light Company, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 66333-66334 [2011-27691]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
The following individuals will serve
as members of the NRC PRB Panel that
was established to review appraisals
and make recommendations to the
appointing and awarding authorities for
NRC PRB members:
Marvin L. Itzkowitz, Associate
General Counsel for Hearings,
Enforcement, and Administration,
Office of the General Counsel.
Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office
of New Reactors.
Mark A. Satorius, Director, Office of
Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Management Programs.
All appointments are made pursuant
to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title
5 of the United States Code.
DATES: Effective Date: October 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Secretary, Executive Resources Board,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, (301) 492–2076.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day
of October, 2011.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Miriam L. Cohen,
Secretary, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–27688 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–261; NRC–2011–0247]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Carolina Power & Light Company, H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit
No. 2; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.46,
‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems for light-water nuclear
power reactors,’’ and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix k, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency Core
Cooling System] Evaluation Models,’’ to
allow for the use of M5 alloy fuel rod
cladding for Facility Operating License
No. DPR–23, issued to Carolina Power &
Light Company (the licensee), for
operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBRSEP), located
in Darlington County, South Carolina. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ the NRC
staff prepared an environmental
assessment documenting its finding.
The NRC staff concluded that the
proposed action will have no significant
environmental impact.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from certain requirements
of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10
CFR part 50. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.46,
paragraph (a)(1)(i) provides
requirements for reactors containing
uranium oxide fuel pellets clad in either
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Additionally,
appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 specifies
the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO fuel
cladding when doing calculations for
energy release, cladding oxidation, and
hydrogen generation after a postulated
loss-of-coolant accident. Therefore, both
of these regulations either state that
either zircaloy or ZIRLO is used as the
fuel rod cladding material. The
proposed exemption would allow the
licensee use of M5 cladding fuel
assemblies into the core of HBRESP,
Unit 2. The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee’s
application dated October 19, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed to
allow the licensee to allow for the use
of M5 alloy fuel rod cladding at
HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. The licensee has
requested an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10
CFR part 50, appendix K to allow for
loading of M5 cladding fuel assemblies,
in lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO, into the
core during Refueling Outage 27 that is
currently scheduled to begin on October
29, 2011.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that there are no environmental impacts
associated with the proposed
exemption. The details of the NRC
staff’s safety evaluation will be provided
in the exemption that, if approved by
the NRC, will be issued as part of the
letter to the licensee approving the
exemption to the regulation.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential
nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not result in changes to land
use or water use, or result in changes to
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66333
the quality or quantity of
nonradiological 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
specifies 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 historical and cultural
resources. In addition, there are also no
known socioeconomic or environmental
justice impacts associated with such
proposed action. Therefore, there are no
significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative). Denial of the
exemption request would result in no
change in current environmental
impacts. If the proposed action was
denied, the licensee would have to
comply with the ECCS rules in 10 CFR
50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50
regarding use of M5 cladding into the
HBRSEP, Unit 2 core during the
upcoming refueling outage. This would
cause unnecessary burden on the
licensee, without a significant benefit in
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and the ‘‘no action’’
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for the HBRSEP, dated April
1975, as supplemented through the
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2—Final Report
(NUREG—1437, Supplement 13).’’
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on October 17, 2011, the NRC staff
consulted with the South Carolina State
official, Mark Yeager of the South
Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste
Management, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
66334
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of
No Significant Impact,’’ and on the basis
of the environmental assessment, the
NRC concludes that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated October 19, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), Accession No.
ML102980142). This document 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 are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the
NRC Library 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 17th day
of October 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–27691 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0435]
Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Proposed License Renewal for
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. in Erwin,
TN
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a final
environmental assessment (EA)
regarding the proposed renewal of NRC
special nuclear material license SNM–
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
124 (License SNM–124), which
authorizes operations at the Nuclear
Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) fuel fabrication
facility in Erwin, Tennessee. On June
30, 2009, NFS submitted to the NRC an
application requesting that License
SNM–124 be renewed for a 40-year
period. The EA makes a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) regarding the
proposed action.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly
available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents related to the NFS facility
and license renewal at the NRC’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Members of the public
can contact the NRC’s PDR reference
staff by calling 1–800–397–4209, by
faxing a request to 301–415–3548, or by
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Hard
copies of the documents are available
from the PDR for a fee.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the
NRC’s public documents. From this
Web site, the following documents
related to the NRC’s environmental
review can be obtained by entering the
accession numbers provided:
The NFS license renewal application
(ADAMS Accession Number:
ML091880040) and the accompanying
environmental report (ADAMS
Accession Number: ML091900072);
The NRC request for additional
information (ADAMS Accession
Number: ML100680426);
The NFS response providing
additional information (ADAMS
Accession Number: ML101590160); and
The NRC Final EA (ADAMS
Accession Number: ML112560265).
Additionally, copies of the EA will be
available at the following public
libraries:
Unicoi County Public Library, 201
Nolichucky Avenue, Erwin,
Tennessee 37650–1239. 423–743–
6533.
Jonesborough Branch, Washington
County Library, 200 Sabin Drive,
Jonesborough, Tennessee 37659–1306.
423–753–1800.
Greeneville/Green County Public
Library, 210 North Main Street,
Greeneville, Tennessee 37745–3816.
423–638–5034.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For
information about the EA or the
environmental review process, please
contact James Park, telephone: 301–
415–6935; e-mail: James.Park@nrc.gov.
For general or technical information
associated with the ongoing safety
review of the NFS license renewal
application, please contact Kevin
Ramsey, telephone: 301–492–3123;
e-mail: Kevin.Ramsey@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
30, 2009, NFS submitted its license
renewal application and accompanying
environmental report (ER) to the NRC.
On October 6, 2009, the NRC provided
notice in the Federal Register (74 FR
51323) of its receipt of the license
renewal application and also noticed an
opportunity to request a hearing on the
application. No requests for a hearing
were received. Under the conditions of
License SNM–124, NFS operates a
nuclear fuel fabrication facility located
in Erwin, Tennessee. If granted as
requested, the renewed license would
allow NFS to continue operations and
activities at the site for a 40-year period
that would begin with issuance of the
renewed license.
The NRC staff’s environmental review
of the proposed 40-year license renewal
is documented in the EA, in accordance
with NRC regulations at Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
part 51, which implement the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA). The EA also follows
NRC staff guidance in NUREG–1748,
‘‘Environmental Review Guidance for
Licensing Actions Associated with
NMSS Programs.’’ The EA identifies and
evaluates the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed action, and
reasonable alternatives. The NRC staff
has determined that renewal of License
SNM–124 for a 40-year period would
not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, and the EA thus
makes a FONSI. The NRC staff further
finds that preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the proposed action is not
warranted.
The NRC staff published for public
comment a draft EA for the proposed
action on October 15, 2010 (75 FR
63519). The NRC staff accepted
comments on the draft EA until
December 31, 2010, and hosted a
meeting in Erwin, Tennessee on October
26, 2010, to accept oral and written
public comments. Comments were
identified from the transcript of
statements made at the public meeting,
and from letters and e-mails submitted
by members of the public. Appendix B
of the Final EA includes summaries of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66333-66334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261; NRC-2011-0247]
Carolina Power & Light Company, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,'' and 10 CFR
part 50, appendix k, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] Evaluation
Models,'' to allow for the use of M5 alloy fuel rod cladding for
Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, issued to Carolina Power & Light
Company (the licensee), for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBRSEP), located in Darlington County, South
Carolina. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and
identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,'' the NRC staff prepared an environmental
assessment documenting its finding. The NRC staff concluded that the
proposed action will have no significant environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50.
Specifically, 10 CFR 50.46, paragraph (a)(1)(i) provides requirements
for reactors containing uranium oxide fuel pellets clad in either
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Additionally, appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 specifies
the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO fuel cladding when doing calculations for
energy release, cladding oxidation, and hydrogen generation after a
postulated loss-of-coolant accident. Therefore, both of these
regulations either state that either zircaloy or ZIRLO is used as the
fuel rod cladding material. The proposed exemption would allow the
licensee use of M5 cladding fuel assemblies into the core of HBRESP,
Unit 2. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 19, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed to allow the licensee to allow for
the use of M5 alloy fuel rod cladding at HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. The
licensee has requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K to allow for loading of M5
cladding fuel assemblies, in lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO, into the core
during Refueling Outage 27 that is currently scheduled to begin on
October 29, 2011.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with the
proposed exemption. The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation
will be provided in the exemption that, if approved by the NRC, will be
issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to
the regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result
in changes to the quality or quantity of nonradiological 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
specifies 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 historical and cultural resources. In addition, there are also no
known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with
such proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee
would have to comply with the ECCS rules in 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K
to 10 CFR part 50 regarding use of M5 cladding into the HBRSEP, Unit 2
core during the upcoming refueling outage. This would cause unnecessary
burden on the licensee, without a significant benefit in environmental
impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the
``no action'' alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the HBRSEP,
dated April 1975, as supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2--Final Report (NUREG--1437, Supplement
13).''
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 17, 2011, the NRC
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mark Yeager of
the South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste Management, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
[[Page 66334]]
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ``Finding of No Significant Impact,'' and
on the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 19, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML102980142). This
document 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 are accessible electronically through ADAMS
in the NRC Library 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 17th day of October 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-27691 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
