Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39289-39291 [2016-14262]

Download as PDF 39289 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices ADAMS Accession No. Date Document December 13, 2012 ............ February 1, 2009 ................ May 31, 2016 ...................... Submission of Duke 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. 2016–14261 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72–04; NRC–2016–0110] Duke Energy; Oconee 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 Oconee Nuclear Station in Oconee 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–2016–0110 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 is publicly available, using any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0110. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3463; 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- asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 Oconee 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. ML16141A277) 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 Oconee ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ML12353A033 ML090500648 ML16144A026 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 Oconee ISFSI is located in Oconee County, South Carolina. Duke is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL–06 and SNM–2503 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Oconee 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 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 E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1 39290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices 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 Oconee Nuclear Station. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 Duke’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 South 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 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 Duke’s decommissioning funding plan ................................................ ML12353A033 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices 39291 Date Document ADAMS Accession No. February 1, 2009 ...................................... May 31, 2016 ............................................ Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ................... NRC staff’s Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ............ ML090500648 ML16141A277 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. 2016–14262 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P PEACE CORPS Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review Peace Corps. ACTION: 60-day notice and request for comments. AGENCY: The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Submit comments on or before August 15, 2016. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/ Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202–692– 1236 or email at pcfr@peacecorps.gov. Email comments must be made in text and not in attachments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above. SUMMARY: asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Health History Form. OMB Control Number: 0420–0510. Type of Request: Revison. Affected Public: Individuals. Respondents Obligation to Reply: Voluntary. Respondents: Potential and current volunteers. Burdent to the Public: a. Estimated number of respondents: 23,000. b. Estimated average burden per response: 45 minutes. c. Frequency of response: One Time. d. Annual reporting burden: 17,250 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 General Description of Collection: The information collected is required for consideration for Peace Corps Volunteer service. The information in the Health History Form, will be used by the Peace Corps Office of Medical Services to determine whether an Applicant will, with reasonable accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of a Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a tour of service without undue disruption due to health problems and, if so, to establish the level of medical and programmatic support, if any, that may be required to reasonably accommodate the Applicant. Request for Comment: Peace Corps invites comments on whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for proper performance of the functions of the Peace Corps, including whether the information will have practical use; the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the information to be collected; and, ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. This notice is issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2016. Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Management. [FR Doc. 2016–14214 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6051–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2016–152 and CP2016–196; CP2016–195; CP2016–197; CP2016–198] New Postal Products Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission’s consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: June 20, 2016 (Comment due date applies to all Docket Nos. listed above). SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at https:// www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list. Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request’s acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request. The public portions of the Postal Service’s request(s) can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site (https:// www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40. The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service’s request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39289-39291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14262]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-04; NRC-2016-0110]


Duke Energy; Oconee 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 Oconee 
Nuclear Station in Oconee 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-2016-0110 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 is publicly available, using any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0110. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
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 Oconee 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. ML16141A277) 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 Oconee 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 Oconee ISFSI is located in Oconee County, South Carolina. Duke 
is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-06 and SNM-2503 to 
store spent nuclear fuel at the Oconee 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 
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

[[Page 39290]]

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 Oconee Nuclear Station.

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 Duke'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 South 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 
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
             Date                     Document                No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2012............  Submission of Duke's   ML12353A033
                                decommissioning
                                funding plan.

[[Page 39291]]

 
February 1, 2009.............  Environmental          ML090500648
                                Assessment for Final
                                Rule--Decommissionin
                                g Planning.
May 31, 2016.................  NRC staff's Final EA   ML16141A277
                                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. 2016-14262 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.