Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 41454-41457 [2012-17110]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41454
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Notices
understood, and the impact of collection
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed information
collection request can be obtained by
contacting the individual listed below
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to
the office listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below on
or before August 13, 2012.
OMB is particularly interested in
comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
ADDRESSES: Kim A. Miller, Management
Analyst, Institute of Museum and
Library Services, 1800 M Street NW.,
9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
Telephone: 202–653–4762; Fax: 202–
653–4600; or email: kmiller@imls.gov; or
by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with
hearing difficulty at 202–653–4614.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Institute of Museum and Library
Services is the primary source of federal
support for the Nation’s 123,000
libraries and 17,500 museums. The
mission of IMLS is to inspire libraries
and museums to advance innovation,
lifelong learning, and cultural and civic
engagement. We provide leadership
through research, policy development,
and grant making. IMLS provides a
variety of grant programs to assist the
Nation’s museums and libraries in
improving their operations and
enhancing their services to the public.
(20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.).
Current Actions: This notice proposes
general clearance of the agency’s
guideline application and report forms.
The 60-day Notice for the ‘‘Notice of
Continuance for General Clearance for
Guidelines, Applications, and Reporting
Forms’’ was published in the Federal
Register on May 10, 2012 (FR vol. 77,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Jul 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
No. 91, pgs. 27486). No comments were
received.
Agency: Institute of Museum and
Library Services.
Title: IMLS Guidelines, Applications
and Reporting Forms.
OMB Number: 3137–0029, 3137–
0071.
Agency Number: 3137.
Frequency: Annually, Semi-annually.
Affected Public: State Library
Administrative Agencies, museums,
libraries, institutions of higher
education, library and museum
professional associations, and museum
and library professionals, Indian tribes
(including Alaska native villages,
regional corporations, or village
corporations), and organizations that
primarily serve and represent Native
Hawaiians.
Number of Respondents: 7,961.
Estimated Time per Respondent:
.08–90 hours.
Total Burden Hours: 70,092.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: 0.
Total Annual Costs: $1,921,209.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comments should be sent to Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn.: OMB Desk Officer for Education,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
(202) 395–7316.
The Commission had previously
issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in
the Federal Register on February 7,
2012 (77 FR 6149). However, by letter
dated June 19, 2012, the licensee
withdrew the proposed change.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated December 19, 2011,
and the licensee’s letter dated June 19,
2012, which withdrew the application
for license amendment. 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 20852. Publicly available
documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically
through the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
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
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated: July 10, 2012.
Kim A. Miller,
Management Analyst, Office of Policy,
Planning, Research, and Communication.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of July 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick G. Boyle,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–17169 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 2012–17121 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036–01–P
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–425; NRC–2012–0169]
[Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; NRC–
2012–0168]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of
Application for Amendment to Facility
Operating License
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) has
granted the request of Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee)
to withdraw its December 19, 2011,
application for proposed amendment to
Facility Operating License No. NPF–81
for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,
Unit 2, located in Burke County,
Georgia.
The proposed amendment would
have revised the Technical
Specifications related to the Engineered
Safety Features Room Cooler and SafetyRelated Chiller System, Allowed
Completion Time for Condition A.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 2,
LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit
3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Units 2 and 3; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment and changes
to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–26
and DPR–64, issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the
licensee) for operation of the Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3
(IP2 and IP3) located in Westchester
County, New York, in accordance with
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Notices
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.90. The
proposed changes request NRC approval
for the transfer of spent fuel from the
IP3 spent fuel pool (SFP) to the IP2 SFP
using a newly-designed shielded
transfer canister (STC), for further
transfer to the on-site Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC staff performed an
environmental assessment (EA). The
NRC staff did not identify any
significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the
information provided in the licensee’s
application and other available
information. Therefore, the NRC staff is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) for the proposed action.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
IP2 and IP3 are located on
approximately 239 acres (97 hectares) of
land in the Village of Buchanan in
upper Westchester County, New York.
The facility is on the eastern bank of the
Hudson River. Both IP2 and IP3 use
Westinghouse pressurized-water
reactors and nuclear steam supply
systems. For each unit, cooling is
provided by a once-through cooling
water intake that supplies cooling water
from the Hudson River. Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1),
now permanently shut down, shares the
site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 was shut
down in 1974, and is in a safe storage
condition awaiting final
decommissioning.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed changes request NRC
approval for the transfer of spent fuel
from the IP3 SFP to the IP2 SFP using
a newly-designed STC, for further
transfer to the on-site ISFSI, which uses
the Holtec HI–STORM 100 dry cask
storage system that has been previously
certified for dry spent fuel storage under
10 CFR part 72. Entergy has no plans to
make extensive physical modifications
to existing plant buildings or property
for the proposed action. The proposed
action is detailed in the licensee’s
application dated July 8, 2009,
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML091940176, as
supplemented by letters dated
September 28, 2009; ADAMS Accession
No. ML092950437; October 26, 2009,
ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080;
October 5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No.
ML102910511; October 28, 2010,
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103080112
and ML103080113; July 28, 2011,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Jul 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
ADAMS Accession No. ML11220A079;
August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML11243A174, ML11243A175;
and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011,
ADAMS Accession No. ML11327A045
and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011,
ADAMS Accession No. ML12013A259;
January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession
No. ML120400604; March 2, 2012,
ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027,
April 23, 2012, ADAMS Accession No.
ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012,
ADAMS Accession No. ML121370318.
The licensee’s application and
supplemental submissions are
accessible electronically from the NRC’s
Web site, www.nrc.gov.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Entergy requested the proposed action
because transferring the IP3 spent fuel
from the IP3 SFP directly into dry
storage casks is not possible due to the
limitations of the 40-ton cask handling
crane in the IP3 fuel storage building
(FSB) where the SFP is located. A cask
handling crane capacity of at least 100
tons is required to lift and handle the
loaded HI–TRAC transfer cask licensed
as part of the HI–STORM 100 System.
Entergy had previously added a singlefailure-proof gantry crane with this
capacity to the IP2 FSB, by excavating
to bedrock and supporting the crane
foundation on bedrock. An upgrade to
the IP3 cask handling crane capacity to
100 tons or more was evaluated and
found to be not feasible and as such
results in the need for inter-unit fuel
transfer. The IP3 SFP is approaching the
limit of its storage capacity. Spent fuel
must be removed from the IP3 SFP to
restore and maintain the ability to
unload the entire IP3 reactor core into
the IP3 SFP for the remainder of its
service life in order to perform
maintenance on the reactor vessel and
associated systems.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
There are no potential land use and
aesthetic impacts from the proposed
action. No new construction of
buildings is proposed. The work
activities would occur within existing
structures. Existing parking lots, road
access, equipment lay-down areas,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and
restrooms would be used during
implementation of the proposed action.
Land use conditions would not change
at the Indian Point site. Therefore, there
would be no significant impact from the
proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41455
Air Quality Impacts
Some minor and short duration air
quality impacts would occur during
implementation of the fuel transfer at
the site. The main source of air
emissions would come from the
vehicles driven by plant workers and
contractors. However, air emissions
would be less than is experienced
during the routine refueling outages
once each year. Therefore, there would
be no significant impact on air quality
in the region during and following
implementation of the proposed action.
Surface Water Impacts
There are no potential surface water
impacts from the proposed action. No
new use of surface water or effluent
discharges into surface water will be
made as part of the proposed action.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact to surface water resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Groundwater Impacts
There are no potential groundwater
impacts from the proposed action. No
new use of groundwater or effluent
discharges into groundwater will be
made as part of the proposed action.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact to groundwater resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
There are no potential impacts to
aquatic resources from the proposed
action. No new effluent discharges into
the aquatic environment will be made as
part of the proposed action. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact to
aquatic resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
There are no potential impacts to
terrestrial resources from the proposed
action. No new land areas will be
disturbed and no new effluent
discharges will be made as part of the
proposed action. Therefore, there would
be no significant impact to terrestrial
resources during implementation of the
proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Impacts
There are no potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species from
the proposed action. No new
withdrawals from the Hudson River or
any new effluent discharges into the
aquatic environment will be made as
part of the proposed action. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact to
threatened and endangered species
during implementation of the proposed
action.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
41456
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Notices
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Impacts
There are no potential impacts to
historic and archaeological resources
from the proposed action because no
new construction on the site or vicinity
of the site is proposed. The work
activities would occur within existing
structures. Existing parking lots, road
access, equipment lay-down areas,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and
restrooms would be used during
implementation of the proposed action.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact to historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed action.
Agency radiation safety standards. The
proposed action will not significantly
change the types or amounts of
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste. At
the site, the volume of solid radioactive
waste is expected to show a small
increase because of the use of protective
clothing for the workers, the disposal of
used seals from the STC and HI–TRAC
lids, and decontamination work
performed on equipment and work
areas. However, the additional volume
would not have a significant effect on
the plant’s ability to handle and process
the waste. Based on the above, there are
no significant radioactive waste impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from
the proposed action include a temporary
increase in the size of the workforce at
the Indian Point site. The expected
increase is much smaller than the
additional workforce experienced
during a refueling outage. Therefore,
due to the small and temporary increase
in the number of workers needed to
support the proposed action, there are
no significant socioeconomic impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Occupational Radiation Dose
To protect plant workers, the
licensee’s radiation protection program
monitors radiation levels throughout the
plant to establish appropriate work
controls, training, temporary shielding,
and protective equipment requirements
so that worker doses will remain within
the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20.
Entergy evaluated the potential
occupational exposures that would
result from the operational sequence to
transfer spent fuel assemblies from the
IP3 SFP to the IP2 SFP. The evaluation
concluded that the radiation dose to
workers would be within the dose limits
specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The NRC
staff reviewed the dose estimates for the
transfer operations in its safety
evaluation for the proposed action and
concluded that the dose estimates for
the operations activities are reasonable.
Based on the above, there are no
significant occupational dose impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from
activities associated with the proposed
action at the Indian Point site. Such
effects may include human health,
biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts. Minority and low-income
populations are subsets of the general
population residing in the vicinity of
the Indian Point site, and all are
exposed to the same health and
environmental effects generated from
activities at the Indian Point site. Based
on this information and the analysis of
human health and environmental
impacts presented in this environmental
assessment, the proposed action would
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations residing in the
vicinity of the Indian Point site.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Radiological Impacts
Offsite Doses to Members of the Public
The licensee will maintain
radiological controls in accordance with
its radiation protection program
throughout the spent fuel transfer
operations. The licensee’s evaluation of
the potential dose to a member of the
public at the boundary of the plant’s
controlled area during the proposed
action shows that offsite doses would be
within the public dose limit in 10 CFR
20.1301. Based on the above, the offsite
radiation dose to members of the public
would continue to be within NRC
regulatory limits and, therefore, would
not be significant.
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid
Effluents and Solid Waste
Indian Point uses waste treatment
systems to collect, process, recycle, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid
wastes that contain radioactive material
in a safe and controlled manner within
NRC and Environmental Protection
Accident Doses to Members of the
Public
Various accidents were postulated,
such as a dropped fuel assembly,
extended time delays during transfer
operations, a dropped shielded cask full
of spent fuel, a fire involving the cask
transporter, a tornado during transfer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Jul 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
operations, and a tipover of the shielded
cask full of spent fuel. These accidents
were analyzed by the licensee and the
analyses were reviewed by NRC staff to
assure that there is no undue hazard to
the health and safety of the public. The
licensee calculated the dose to a
member of the public at the boundary of
the plant’s controlled area for accident
conditions involving the spent fuel
transfer operations. The licensee’s
analyses demonstrate that the dose to
members of the public will be within
the public dose limits in 10 CFR
20.1301. The NRC staff, in its safety
evaluation, found the licensee’s
evaluation to be reasonable. Based on
the above, the offsite radiation dose to
members of the public in the event of
a fuel transfer accident would continue
to be within NRC regulatory limits and,
therefore, would not be significant.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action the licensee considered using a
spent fuel cask which was already
licensed as a transportation package
under 10 CFR part 71. The licensee
identified one cask which could be
lifted by the existing IP3 crane, but it
only had the capacity for a single fuel
assembly. This would severely limit the
rate of fuel transfer and would also
increase the total radiation exposure to
the workers involved with fuel
movement. Using that cask would entail
similar operations as using the STC,
which holds up to 12 fuel assemblies,
but the result would be almost 12 times
as many trips from the IP3 FSB to the
IP2 FSB.
The NRC staff also considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in the current environmental impacts.
However, if the proposed action were
not approved for IP2 and IP3, Entergy
would have to consider installing an IP3
spent fuel cask handing crane with at
least a 100-ton capacity to lift and
handle its standard HI–TRAC fuel
transfer cask. Such an action would
require major upgrades to plant
equipment and modifications to plant
structures, as well as radiation doses to
workers in the IP3 FSB during the
construction process.
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 IP2, dated
September 30, 1972, ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML072390276 and ML072390278,
or the Final Environmental Statement
for IP3, dated February 28, 1975,
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Notices
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072390284
and ML072390286.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 17, 2012, the NRC staff
consulted with the designated New
York State official regarding the
environmental impacts of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments on the environmental
impacts.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC staff concludes
that granting the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC staff has
determined it is not necessary to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
application dated July 8, 2009,
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML091940176, as
supplemented by letters dated
September 28, 2009, ADAMS Accession
No. ML092950437; October 26, 2009,
ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080;
October 5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No.
ML102910511; October 28, 2010,
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103080112
and ML103080113; July 28, 2011,
ADAMS Accession No. ML11220A079;
August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML11243A174, ML11243A175;
and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011,
ADAMS Accession No. ML11327A045
and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011,
ADAMS Accession No. ML12013A259;
January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession
No. ML120400604; March 2, 2012,
ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027,
April 23, 2012, ADAMS Accession No.
ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012,
ADAMS Accession No. ML121370318.
Publicly available versions of the
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
documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically
through the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) in the NRC Electronic Library
at 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Jul 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Boska, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Mail Stop 0–8C2, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, by
telephone at 301–415–2901, or by email
at John.Boska@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of July 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–17110 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0170]
Aging Management Associated With
Wall Thinning Due to Erosion
Mechanisms
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft interim staff guidance;
request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
requests public comment on Draft
License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance
(LR–ISG), LR–ISG–2012–01, ‘‘Wall
Thinning Due to Erosion Mechanisms.’’
The draft LR–ISG proposes to revise an
NRC staff-recommended aging
management program (AMP) in
NUREG–1801, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic
Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,’’
and the NRC staff’s aging management
review procedure and acceptance
criteria contained in NUREG–1800,
Revision 2, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for
Review of License Renewal
Applications for Nuclear Power Plants’’
(SRP–LR) to address wall thinning due
to various erosion mechanisms for
piping and components within the
scope of the Requirements for Renewal
of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants. This LR–ISG provides changes to
the recommendations in GALL Report,
Revision 2, AMP XI.M17, ‘‘FlowAccelerated Corrosion,’’ based on the
staff’s review of several license renewal
applications’ flow-accelerated corrosion
AMPs and stakeholder input.
DATES: Submit comments by August 27,
2012. Comments received after this date
will be considered, if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41457
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and are publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2012–0170. You
may submit comments by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0170. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Gavula, Division of License
Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 630–829–9755; email:
James.Gavula@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–
0170 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and are
publicly available, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0170.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The draft
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41454-41457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17110]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2012-0168]
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian
Point Unit 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment and changes to the Technical Specifications
(TSs) for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64, issued to
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) for
operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and
IP3) located in Westchester County, New York, in accordance with Title
10 of the Code of Federal
[[Page 41455]]
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.90. The proposed changes request NRC approval
for the transfer of spent fuel from the IP3 spent fuel pool (SFP) to
the IP2 SFP using a newly-designed shielded transfer canister (STC),
for further transfer to the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI). Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
staff performed an environmental assessment (EA). The NRC staff did not
identify any significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action based on its evaluation of the information provided in
the licensee's application and other available information. Therefore,
the NRC staff is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for
the proposed action.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately 239 acres (97 hectares) of
land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York.
The facility is on the eastern bank of the Hudson River. Both IP2 and
IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam
supply systems. For each unit, cooling is provided by a once-through
cooling water intake that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River.
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1), now permanently shut
down, shares the site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 was shut down in 1974, and
is in a safe storage condition awaiting final decommissioning.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed changes request NRC approval for the transfer of spent
fuel from the IP3 SFP to the IP2 SFP using a newly-designed STC, for
further transfer to the on-site ISFSI, which uses the Holtec HI-STORM
100 dry cask storage system that has been previously certified for dry
spent fuel storage under 10 CFR part 72. Entergy has no plans to make
extensive physical modifications to existing plant buildings or
property for the proposed action. The proposed action is detailed in
the licensee's application dated July 8, 2009, Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091940176, as
supplemented by letters dated September 28, 2009; ADAMS Accession No.
ML092950437; October 26, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080; October
5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML102910511; October 28, 2010, ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML103080112 and ML103080113; July 28, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML11220A079; August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML11243A174, ML11243A175; and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML11327A045 and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML12013A259; January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession No.
ML120400604; March 2, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027, April 23,
2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012, ADAMS Accession
No. ML121370318. The licensee's application and supplemental
submissions are accessible electronically from the NRC's Web site,
www.nrc.gov.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Entergy requested the proposed action because transferring the IP3
spent fuel from the IP3 SFP directly into dry storage casks is not
possible due to the limitations of the 40-ton cask handling crane in
the IP3 fuel storage building (FSB) where the SFP is located. A cask
handling crane capacity of at least 100 tons is required to lift and
handle the loaded HI-TRAC transfer cask licensed as part of the HI-
STORM 100 System. Entergy had previously added a single-failure-proof
gantry crane with this capacity to the IP2 FSB, by excavating to
bedrock and supporting the crane foundation on bedrock. An upgrade to
the IP3 cask handling crane capacity to 100 tons or more was evaluated
and found to be not feasible and as such results in the need for inter-
unit fuel transfer. The IP3 SFP is approaching the limit of its storage
capacity. Spent fuel must be removed from the IP3 SFP to restore and
maintain the ability to unload the entire IP3 reactor core into the IP3
SFP for the remainder of its service life in order to perform
maintenance on the reactor vessel and associated systems.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
There are no potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the
proposed action. No new construction of buildings is proposed. The work
activities would occur within existing structures. Existing parking
lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops,
warehouses, and restrooms would be used during implementation of the
proposed action. Land use conditions would not change at the Indian
Point site. Therefore, there would be no significant impact from the
proposed action.
Air Quality Impacts
Some minor and short duration air quality impacts would occur
during implementation of the fuel transfer at the site. The main source
of air emissions would come from the vehicles driven by plant workers
and contractors. However, air emissions would be less than is
experienced during the routine refueling outages once each year.
Therefore, there would be no significant impact on air quality in the
region during and following implementation of the proposed action.
Surface Water Impacts
There are no potential surface water impacts from the proposed
action. No new use of surface water or effluent discharges into surface
water will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore, there
would be no significant impact to surface water resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Groundwater Impacts
There are no potential groundwater impacts from the proposed
action. No new use of groundwater or effluent discharges into
groundwater will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact to groundwater resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
There are no potential impacts to aquatic resources from the
proposed action. No new effluent discharges into the aquatic
environment will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact to aquatic resources during
implementation of the proposed action.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
There are no potential impacts to terrestrial resources from the
proposed action. No new land areas will be disturbed and no new
effluent discharges will be made as part of the proposed action.
Therefore, there would be no significant impact to terrestrial
resources during implementation of the proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
There are no potential impacts to threatened and endangered species
from the proposed action. No new withdrawals from the Hudson River or
any new effluent discharges into the aquatic environment will be made
as part of the proposed action. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact to threatened and endangered species during
implementation of the proposed action.
[[Page 41456]]
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
There are no potential impacts to historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed action because no new construction on the
site or vicinity of the site is proposed. The work activities would
occur within existing structures. Existing parking lots, road access,
equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms
would be used during implementation of the proposed action. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact to historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed action.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed action include a
temporary increase in the size of the workforce at the Indian Point
site. The expected increase is much smaller than the additional
workforce experienced during a refueling outage. Therefore, due to the
small and temporary increase in the number of workers needed to support
the proposed action, there are no significant socioeconomic impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
activities associated with the proposed action at the Indian Point
site. Such effects may include human health, biological, cultural,
economic, or social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are
subsets of the general population residing in the vicinity of the
Indian Point site, and all are exposed to the same health and
environmental effects generated from activities at the Indian Point
site. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the
proposed action would not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations residing in the vicinity of the Indian Point site.
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste
Indian Point uses waste treatment systems to collect, process,
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and
Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety standards. The
proposed action will not significantly change the types or amounts of
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste. At the site, the volume of solid
radioactive waste is expected to show a small increase because of the
use of protective clothing for the workers, the disposal of used seals
from the STC and HI-TRAC lids, and decontamination work performed on
equipment and work areas. However, the additional volume would not have
a significant effect on the plant's ability to handle and process the
waste. Based on the above, there are no significant radioactive waste
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Occupational Radiation Dose
To protect plant workers, the licensee's radiation protection
program monitors radiation levels throughout the plant to establish
appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20. Entergy evaluated the
potential occupational exposures that would result from the operational
sequence to transfer spent fuel assemblies from the IP3 SFP to the IP2
SFP. The evaluation concluded that the radiation dose to workers would
be within the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The NRC staff
reviewed the dose estimates for the transfer operations in its safety
evaluation for the proposed action and concluded that the dose
estimates for the operations activities are reasonable. Based on the
above, there are no significant occupational dose impacts associated
with the proposed action.
Offsite Doses to Members of the Public
The licensee will maintain radiological controls in accordance with
its radiation protection program throughout the spent fuel transfer
operations. The licensee's evaluation of the potential dose to a member
of the public at the boundary of the plant's controlled area during the
proposed action shows that offsite doses would be within the public
dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301. Based on the above, the offsite radiation
dose to members of the public would continue to be within NRC
regulatory limits and, therefore, would not be significant.
Accident Doses to Members of the Public
Various accidents were postulated, such as a dropped fuel assembly,
extended time delays during transfer operations, a dropped shielded
cask full of spent fuel, a fire involving the cask transporter, a
tornado during transfer operations, and a tipover of the shielded cask
full of spent fuel. These accidents were analyzed by the licensee and
the analyses were reviewed by NRC staff to assure that there is no
undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. The licensee
calculated the dose to a member of the public at the boundary of the
plant's controlled area for accident conditions involving the spent
fuel transfer operations. The licensee's analyses demonstrate that the
dose to members of the public will be within the public dose limits in
10 CFR 20.1301. The NRC staff, in its safety evaluation, found the
licensee's evaluation to be reasonable. Based on the above, the offsite
radiation dose to members of the public in the event of a fuel transfer
accident would continue to be within NRC regulatory limits and,
therefore, would not be significant.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action the licensee considered
using a spent fuel cask which was already licensed as a transportation
package under 10 CFR part 71. The licensee identified one cask which
could be lifted by the existing IP3 crane, but it only had the capacity
for a single fuel assembly. This would severely limit the rate of fuel
transfer and would also increase the total radiation exposure to the
workers involved with fuel movement. Using that cask would entail
similar operations as using the STC, which holds up to 12 fuel
assemblies, but the result would be almost 12 times as many trips from
the IP3 FSB to the IP2 FSB.
The NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed action (i.e.,
the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result
in no change in the current environmental impacts. However, if the
proposed action were not approved for IP2 and IP3, Entergy would have
to consider installing an IP3 spent fuel cask handing crane with at
least a 100-ton capacity to lift and handle its standard HI-TRAC fuel
transfer cask. Such an action would require major upgrades to plant
equipment and modifications to plant structures, as well as radiation
doses to workers in the IP3 FSB during the construction process.
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
IP2, dated September 30, 1972, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072390276 and
ML072390278, or the Final Environmental Statement for IP3, dated
February 28, 1975,
[[Page 41457]]
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072390284 and ML072390286.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 17, 2012, the NRC
staff consulted with the designated New York State official regarding
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State official
had no comments on the environmental impacts.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC staff
concludes that granting the proposed action will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC
staff has determined it is not necessary to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated July 8, 2009, Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091940176, as
supplemented by letters dated September 28, 2009, ADAMS Accession No.
ML092950437; October 26, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080; October
5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML102910511; October 28, 2010, ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML103080112 and ML103080113; July 28, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML11220A079; August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML11243A174, ML11243A175; and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML11327A045 and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011, ADAMS
Accession No. ML12013A259; January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession No.
ML120400604; March 2, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027, April 23,
2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012, ADAMS Accession
No. ML121370318. Publicly available versions of the 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
documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically
through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
in the NRC Electronic Library at 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Boska, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Mail Stop 0-8C2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-2901, or by email at
John.Boska@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-17110 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
