Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39285-39287 [2016-14253]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39285
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices
approval of the DFP will not authorize
any construction activity, facility
modification, or any other landdisturbing activity. The NRC staff has
concluded that the proposed action is a
procedural and administrative action
and as such, that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined
not to prepare an EIS for the proposed
action but will issue this FONSI. In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the
FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following documents, related to
this Notice, can be found using any of
the methods provided in the following
table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS
were provided under the ADDRESSES
section of this Notice.
ADAMS
Accession
No.
Date
Document
December 13, 2012 ..................................
February 1, 2009 ......................................
May 31, 2016 ............................................
Submission of Duke’s decommissioning funding plan ..............................................
Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning .................
NRC staff’s Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ..........
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day
of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bernard H. White IV,
Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing
Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016–14258 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–06; NRC–2016–0112]
Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
for its review and approval of the
decommissioning funding plan
submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for
the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) at the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) in
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this document are available on June 16,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0112 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0112. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 Jun 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
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
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced. In addition,
for the convenience of the reader, the
ADAMS accession numbers are
provided in a table in the section of this
document entitled, Availability of
Documents.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–0018, email: Richard.Baum@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of
the decommissioning funding plan
(DFP) for the Brunswick ISFSI. Duke
submitted a DFP for NRC review and
approval by letter dated December 13,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12353A033). The NRC staff has
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ML12353A033
ML090500648
ML16141B198
prepared a Final EA (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16144A362) in support of its
review of Duke’s DFP, in accordance
with the NRC regulations in part 51 of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions,’’ which implement the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has
determined that approval of the DFP for
the Brunswick ISFSI will not
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, and, accordingly,
the staff has concluded that a FONSI is
appropriate. The NRC staff further finds
that preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not warranted
because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10
CFR 51.22 (c)(11) do not apply to the
DFP reviews, since the categorical
exclusion only apply to license
amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP
reviews and approvals are not license
amendment.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The Brunswick ISFSI is located in
Southport, North Carolina. Duke is
authorized by NRC, under License No.
SFGL–41, to store spent nuclear fuel at
the Brunswick ISFSI.
The NRC requires its licensees to plan
for the eventual decommissioning of
their licensed facilities prior to license
termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC
published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending its decommissioning
planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The
final rule amended the NRC regulation,
10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial
assurance and decommissioning for
ISFSIs. This regulation now requires
each holder of, or applicant for, a
license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit,
for NRC review and approval, a DFP.
The purpose of the DFP is to
demonstrate the licensee’s financial
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
39286
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices
assurance, i.e., that funds will be
available to decommission the ISFSI.
The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP
submitted by Duke on December 13,
2012. Specifically, the NRC must
determine whether Duke’s DFP contains
the information required by 10 CFR
72.30(b) and whether Duke has
provided reasonable assurance that
funds will be available to decommission
the ISFSI.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the NRC’s
review and approval of Duke’s DFP
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR
72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC
will evaluate whether the
decommissioning cost estimate (DCE)
adequately estimates the cost to conduct
the required ISFSI decommissioning
activities prior to license termination,
including identification of the volume
of onsite subsurface material containing
residual radioactivity that will require
remediation to meet the license
termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402
or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also
evaluate whether the aggregate dollar
amount of Duke’s financial instruments
provide adequate financial assurance to
cover the DCE and that the financial
instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR
72.30(e).
The proposed action does not require
any changes to the ISFSI’s licensed
routine operations, maintenance
activities, or monitoring programs, nor
does it require any new construction or
land disturbing activities. The scope of
the proposed action concerns only the
NRC’s review and approval of the
Duke’s DFP. The scope of the proposed
action does not include, and will not
result in, the review and approval of any
decontamination or decommissioning
activity or license termination for the
ISFSI or any other part of BSEP.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides a
means for Duke to demonstrate that it
will have sufficient funding to cover the
costs of decommissioning the ISFSI,
including the reduction of the residual
radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level
specified by the applicable NRC license
termination regulations concerning
release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402
or 10 CFR 20.1403).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC’s approval of the DFP will
not change the scope or nature of the
operation of the ISFSI and will not
authorize any changes to licensed
operations or maintenance activities.
The NRC’s approval of the DFP will not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 Jun 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
result in any changes in the types,
characteristics, or quantities of
radiological or non-radiological
effluents released into the environment
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation
of any solid waste. Moreover, the
approval of the DFP will not authorize
any construction activity or facility
modification. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the approval of the DFP
is a procedural and administrative
action that will not result in any
significant impact to the environment.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(NHPA), requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. In
accordance with the NHPA
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part
800, ‘‘Protection of Historic Properties,’’
NRC’s approval of Duke’s DFP
constitutes a federal undertaking. The
NRC, however, has determined that the
approval of the DFP is a type of
undertaking that does not have the
potential to cause effects on historic
properties, assuming such historic
properties were present, because the
NRC’s approval of Duke’s DFP will not
authorize or result in changes to
licensed operations or maintenance
activities, or changes in the types,
characteristics, or quantities of
radiological or non-radiological
effluents released into the environment
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation
of any solid waste. Therefore, in
accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no
consultation is required under Section
106 of the NHPA.
Under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a
proposed action, a federal agency must
determine whether (i) endangered and
threatened species or their critical
habitats are known to be in the vicinity
of the proposed action and if so,
whether (ii) the proposed Federal action
may affect listed species or critical
habitats. If the proposed action may
affect listed species or critical habitats,
the federal agency is required to consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50
CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in
informal consultation with the FWS.
The NRC has determined that the
proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or their
critical habitats because the NRC’s
approval of Duke’s DFP will not
authorize or result in changes to
licensed operations or maintenance
activities, or changes in the types,
characteristics, or quantities of
radiological or non-radiological
effluents released into the environment
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation
of any solid waste. The FWS has
concurred with the NRC’s determination
that the proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
In addition to the proposed action, the
NRC evaluated the no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative is to deny
Duke’s DFP. A denial of a DFP that
meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b)
does not support the regulatory intent of
the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the
rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090500648), not promulgating the
2011 final rule would have increased
the likelihood of additional legacy sites.
Thus, denying the licensee’s DFP,
which the NRC has found to meet the
criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will
undermine the licensee’s
decommissioning planning. On this
basis, the NRC has concluded that the
no-action alternative is not a viable
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with other
agencies and parties regarding the
environmental impacts of the proposed
action. The NRC provided a draft of its
EA to the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services on August
10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to
respond. The State never responded.
The NRC also consulted with the FWS.
The FWS concurred with the NRC’s
determination that the proposed action
is not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action, the review and
approval of the DFP, submitted in
accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will
not authorize or result in changes to
licensed operations or maintenance
activities, or changes in the types,
characteristics, or quantities of
radiological or non-radiological
effluents released into the environment
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation
of any solid waste. Moreover, the
approval of the DFP will not authorize
any construction activity, facility
modification, or any other landdisturbing activity. The NRC staff has
concluded that the proposed action is a
procedural and administrative action
and as such, that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined
not to prepare an EIS for the proposed
action but will issue this FONSI. In
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
39287
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the
FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following documents, related to
this Notice, can be found using any of
the methods provided in the following
table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS
were provided under the ADDRESSES
section of this Notice.
ADAMS
Accession No.
Date
Document
December 13, 2012 ............
February 1, 2009 ................
May 31, 2016 ......................
Submission of Duke’s decommissioning funding plan ....................................................................
Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning .......................................
NRC staff’s Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ................................
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day
of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bernard H. White IV,
Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing
Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016–14253 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–45; NRC–2016–0113]
Duke Energy; Catawba Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
for its review and approval of the
decommissioning funding plan
submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for
the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) at Catawba Nuclear
Station (CNS), located in York County,
South Carolina.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this document are available on June 16,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0113 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0113. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 Jun 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
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
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document. In
addition, for the convenience of the
reader, the ADAMS accession numbers
are provided in a table in the
‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of
this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–0018, email: Richard.Baum@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INFORMATION CONTACT
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of
the decommissioning funding plan
(DFP) for the Catawba ISFSI. Duke
submitted a DFP for NRC review and
approval by letter dated December 13,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12353A033). The NRC staff has
prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16144A026) in support of its
review of Duke’s DFP, in accordance
with the NRC’s regulations in part 51 of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions,’’ which implement the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ML12353A033
ML090500648
ML16144A362
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has
determined that approval of Duke’s DFP
for the Catawba ISFSI will not
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, and, accordingly,
the staff has concluded that a FONSI is
appropriate. The NRC staff further finds
that preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not warranted
because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10
CFR 51.22(c)(11) do not apply to the
DFP reviews, since the categorical
exclusion only apply to license
amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP
reviews and approvals are not license
amendment.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The Catawba ISFSI is located in York
County, South Carolina is authorized by
the NRC, under License No. SFGL–31,
to store spent nuclear fuel at the
Catawba ISFSI.
The NRC requires its licensees to plan
for the eventual decommissioning of
their licensed facilities prior to license
termination. On June 17, 2011 (76 FR
35512), the NRC published a final rule
in the Federal Register amending its
decommissioning planning regulations.
The final rule amended the NRC
regulation in 10 CFR 72.30, which
concerns financial assurance and
decommissioning for ISFSIs. This
regulation now requires each holder of,
or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR
part 72 to submit, for NRC review and
approval, a DFP. The purpose of the
DFP is to demonstrate the licensee’s
financial assurance, i.e., that funds will
be available to decommission the ISFSI.
The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP
submitted by Duke on December 13,
2012. Specifically, the NRC must
determine whether Duke’s DFP contains
the information required by 10 CFR
72.30(b) and whether Duke has
provided reasonable assurance that
funds will be available to decommission
the ISFSI.
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39285-39287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14253]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-06; NRC-2016-0112]
Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan
submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012,
for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) in Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on
June 16, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0112 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0112. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time
that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the
reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the
section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email:
Richard.Baum@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan
(DFP) for the Brunswick ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and
approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a Final EA (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16144A362) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance
with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Environmental Protection Regulations for
Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,'' which implement
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that
approval of the DFP for the Brunswick ISFSI will not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the
staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further
finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(11)
do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only
apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and
approvals are not license amendment.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The Brunswick ISFSI is located in Southport, North Carolina. Duke
is authorized by NRC, under License No. SFGL-41, to store spent nuclear
fuel at the Brunswick ISFSI.
The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual
decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license
termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the
Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76
FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30,
which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This
regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license
under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The
purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial
[[Page 39286]]
assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the
ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December
13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP
contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke
has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to
decommission the ISFSI.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the
NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE)
adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI
decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including
identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing
residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the
license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC
will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's
financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the
DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR
72.30(e).
The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's
licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring
programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing
activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's
review and approval of the Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action
does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of
any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination
for the ISFSI or any other part of BSEP.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that
it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning
the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the
ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination
regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10
CFR 20.1403).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature
of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to
licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of
the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics,
or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released
into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any
solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any
construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and
administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to
the environment.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of
their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, ``Protection of Historic
Properties,'' NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal
undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the
DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause
effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were
present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or
result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or
changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or
non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the
ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in
accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under
Section 106 of the NHPA.
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to
taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i)
endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known
to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii)
the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical
habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical
habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries
Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in
informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or
their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will
not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or
maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or
quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into
the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid
waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or
critical habitat.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action
alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial
of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support
the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the
rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the
2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional
legacy sites. Thus, denying the licensee's DFP, which the NRC has found
to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the licensee's
decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the
no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a
draft of its EA to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The
State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS
concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review
and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b),
will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or
maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or
quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into
the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid
waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any
construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-
disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed
action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to
prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In
[[Page 39287]]
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by
reference.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using
any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for
accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this
Notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Document ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2012................ Submission of ML12353A033
Duke's
decommissionin
g funding plan.
February 1, 2009................. Environmental ML090500648
Assessment for
Final Rule--
Decommissionin
g Planning.
May 31, 2016..................... NRC staff's ML16144A362
Final EA for
the approval
of the
decommissionin
g funding plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bernard H. White IV,
Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent
Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016-14253 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
