Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 51071-51072 [2012-20743]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices
adjudicating claims of a defendant
located in another state; and/or
d. Due process considerations arising
from abbreviated procedures that
impose limitations on briefing,
discovery, testimony, evidence,
appellate review, etc.
28. State court alternative. As an
alternative to creating a small claims
system at a federal level, should the
statutory mandate of exclusive federal
jurisdiction for copyright claims be
altered to allow small copyright claims
to be pursued through existing state
court systems, including traditional
state small claims courts? What benefits
or problems might flow from such a
change?
29. Empirical data. Commenting
parties are invited to cite and submit
further empirical data (in addition to the
anecdotal and survey information
already cited or submitted to the
Copyright Office in connection with this
proceeding) bearing upon:
a. Whether copyright owners are or
are not pursuing small infringement
claims through the existing federal court
process, and the factors that influence
copyright owners’ decisions in that
regard, including the value of claims
pursued or forgone;
b. The overall cost to a plaintiff and/
or a defendant to litigate a copyright
infringement action to conclusion in
federal court, including costs and
attorneys’ fees, discovery expenditures,
expert witness fees and other expenses
(with reference to the stage of
proceedings at which the matter was
concluded);
c. The frequency with which courts
award costs and/or attorneys’ fees to
prevailing parties pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
505, and the amount of such awards in
relation to the underlying claim or
recovery; and/or
d. The frequency with which litigants
decline to accept an outcome in state
small claims court and seek de novo
review (with or without a jury trial) or
file an appeal in a different court.
30. Funding considerations. Aside
from filing fees, by what means might a
small claims system be partially or
wholly self-supporting? Should winning
and/or losing parties be required to
defray the administrative costs of the
tribunal’s consideration of their matter,
in all or in part? If so, by what means?
If the system consists of or includes
arbitration or mediation, should parties
bear the cost of these alternatives?
31. Evaluation of small claims system.
Should the small claims system be
evaluated for efficacy and, if so, how?
Should it be subject to periodic review
or adjustment? Should it be launched
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Aug 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
initially as a pilot program or on a
limited basis?
32. Other issues. Are there any
additional pertinent issues not
identified above that the Copyright
Office should consider in conducting its
study?
Dated: August 20, 2012.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2012–20802 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–316; NRC–2012–0199]
Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2,
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission) is considering
issuance of an exemption and an
amendment to Renewed Facility
Operating License No. DPR–74, issued
to Indiana Michigan Power Company
(the licensee), for operation of Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (CNP–2),
located in Berrien County, Michigan, in
accordance with §§ 50.12 and 50.90 of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR). In accordance
with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed
an environmental assessment
documenting its findings as follows:
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions would issue an
exemption from certain requirements of
10 CFR, Section 50.46 and Appendix K,
regarding fuel cladding material, and
revise the Technical Specifications
document, which is Appendix A to
Renewed Facility Operating License
DPR–74, to permit use of a
Westinghouse proprietary material,
Optimized ZIRLOTM, for fuel rod
cladding. The licensee will be
authorized to a peak load 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 September 29, 2011,
as supplemented on July 25, 2012.
The Need for the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions to issue an
exemption to the fuel cladding
requirement of 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K, and to amend the
Technical Specifications to permit use
of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel rods to
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51071
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 clad 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 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 CNP–2 to use Optimized
ZIRLOTM clad 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
consequences 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, but because the radionuclides
contributing most to the dose are shortlived, increased burnup would not have
an effect on the consequences 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
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51072
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices
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
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 clad
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 and exemption, these
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Aug 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historic and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
actions. Accordingly, the NRC staff
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, PNNL–13257,
January 2001, Accession No.
ML010310298). The NRC staff’s detailed
safety review will be conveyed in the
Safety Evaluation issued concurrently
with the amendment.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Actions
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed actions do not involve
the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, or the
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Regarding Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2—
Final Report (NUREG–1437,
Supplement 20), dated May 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on June 1, 2012, the NRC staff consulted
with the Michigan State official
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State officials
had no comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
letters dated September 29, 2011, and
July 25, 2012. 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 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
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of August 2012.
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. 2012–20743 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request; Correction
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
Extension: Rule 17f–1(b), OMB
Control No. 3235–0032, SEC File No.
270–28.
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange
Commission published a document in
the Federal Register of August 16, 2012,
concerning its request for the Office of
Management and Budget’s (‘‘OMB’’)
approval of an extension of the
previously approved collection of
information provided for in Rule 17f–
1(b) (17 CFR 240.17f–1(b)) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The document
contained an incorrect OMB Control
Number.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51071-51072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20743]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-316; NRC-2012-0199]
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption and an amendment to Renewed
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74, issued to Indiana Michigan Power
Company (the licensee), for operation of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2 (CNP-2), located in Berrien County, Michigan, in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 50.12 and 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental assessment documenting its findings as
follows:
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions would issue an exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR, Section 50.46 and Appendix K, regarding fuel
cladding material, and revise the Technical Specifications document,
which is Appendix A to Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-74, to
permit use of a Westinghouse proprietary material, Optimized
ZIRLOTM, for fuel rod cladding. The licensee will be
authorized to a peak load 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 September 29, 2011, as supplemented on July 25, 2012.
The Need for the Proposed Actions
The proposed actions to issue an exemption to the fuel cladding
requirement of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K, and to amend the Technical
Specifications to permit use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel
rods 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 clad 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 CNP-2 to use Optimized
ZIRLOTM clad 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 consequences 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, but because the radionuclides contributing most to the dose
are short-lived, increased burnup would not have an effect on the
consequences 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
[[Page 51072]]
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 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 clad 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 and exemption, these 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 of 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 staff
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, PNNL-13257, January 2001, Accession
No. ML010310298). The NRC staff's detailed safety review will be
conveyed in the Safety Evaluation issued concurrently with the
amendment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Actions
As an alternative to the proposed actions, 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 proposed actions do not involve the use of any different
resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, or the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Regarding Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2--Final Report
(NUREG-1437, Supplement 20), dated May 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 1, 2012, 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 letters dated September 29, 2011, and July 25, 2012.
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 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 2012.
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. 2012-20743 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P