[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61838-61839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27328]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-26]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuance of 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 
Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of a materials license under the requirements of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72 (10 CFR Part 72), 
to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the applicant), authorizing 
the construction and operation of an independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) to be located at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant 
(DCPP) in San Luis Obispo County, California. The Commission's Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has completed its review of 
the environmental report submitted by the applicant on December 21, 
2001, as amended by letter dated October 15, 2002, in support of its 
application for a materials license. The staff's ``Environmental 
Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo 
Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation'' has been issued in 
accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

Summary of Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Description of the Proposed Action: The proposed licensing action 
would authorize the applicant to construct and operate a dry storage 
ISFSI at the DCPP site. The purpose of the ISFSI is to provide for 
additional interim storage of spent nuclear fuel generated from the 
operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed 
ISFSI would employ the HI-STORM 100 dry cask storage system designed by 
Holtec International, Inc. The major components of the system include 
the steel multipurpose canisters (MPCs), each containing 24 or 32 spent 
fuel assemblies; the concrete overpacks, which provide additional 
shielding for the MPCs in storage; and the transfer cask, used to move 
loaded and sealed MPCs from the fuel handling building to the ISFSI. A 
license issued for an ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72 is issued for a fixed 
period not to exceed 20 years. A license holder may apply to the 
Commission to renew the license prior to its expiration.
    Need for the Proposed Action: The Diablo Canyon ISFSI is needed to 
provide additional spent fuel storage capacity so that the two DCPP 
reactors can continue to generate electricity beyond 2006, when the 
storage capacity of the plant's two spent fuel pools will be reached. A 
delay in the availability of this additional storage capacity may cause 
a reduction in power operation, or could necessitate the shutdown of 
Units 1 and 2. By providing additional capacity for temporary spent 
fuel storage with the proposed ISFSI, sufficient space can be 
maintained in each unit's spent fuel pool to fully offload its reactor 
core, if necessary, enabling the applicant to continue to operate both 
units until the current operating licenses expire (September 2021 for 
Unit 1 and April 2025 for Unit 2).
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC staff has 
concluded that the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the 
Diablo Canyon ISFSI will not result in a significant impact to the 
environment. Construction impacts of the ISFSI will be minor, and 
limited to the small area of the ISFSI site and the excavated material 
disposal sites. The site chosen for the ISFSI, on approximately 5 acres 
of the 760 acre DCPP site, has been previously disturbed during plant 
construction, as have the disposal sites for the excavated material. 
The proposed ISFSI site and the disposal areas have been extensively 
surveyed and no federal or state listed threatened or endangered 
species have been found in those areas. Thus, the staff does not expect 
the proposed ISFSI to impact any threatened or endangered species. 
There will be minor impacts of increased noise and dust from 
construction equipment and activities during the construction phase, 
but this phase will be of short duration and will not impact offsite 
populations. The proposed ISFSI site is near a site which is included 
in the National Register of Historic Places, CA-SLO-2, but construction 
of the ISFSI will not cause any adverse impacts to that site, due to 
the natural features and to the administrative controls employed by the 
applicant.
    There will be no significant radiological or non-radiological 
environmental impacts from routine operation of the ISFSI. The ISFSI is 
a passive facility and no liquid or gaseous effluents will be released 
from the storage casks. The dose rates from the spent fuel will be 
limited by the design of the storage cask concrete overpacks. The total 
occupational dose to workers at the DCPP site may increase slightly due 
to work associated with loading, transferring, and storing the casks, 
but all occupational doses must be maintained below the limits 
specified in 10 CFR Part 20. The annual dose to the nearest resident 
from ISFSI activities is estimated to be 0.40 mrem/year, which is 
significantly below the annual dose limits specified in 10 CFR 72.104 
and 10 CFR 20.1301(a) (25 mrem and 100 mrem, respectively). The 
cumulative dose to an individual offsite from all site activities will 
be 0.45 mrem/year, which is also much less than the limits specified in 
10 CFR 72.104 and 10 CFR 20.1301. These doses are also a small fraction 
of the doses resulting from naturally-occurring terrestrial and cosmic 
radiation of about 100 mrem/yr in the vicinity of the DCPP. 
Additionally, occupational doses received by facility workers will not 
exceed the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. For hypothetical 
accidents, the calculated dose to an individual at the nearest site 
boundary is well below the 5 rem limit for accidents set forth in 10 
CFR 72.106(b) and in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
protective action guidelines.
    The impacts from decommissioning the ISFSI will be much less than 
the minor impacts of construction and operation. Very small 
occupational exposures could occur during decontamination activities, 
if they are necessary, and minor noise and dust impacts could result 
from dismantling the pad and structures.
    Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The applicant's Environmental 
Report and the staff's EA discussed several alternatives to the 
proposed ISFSI. These alternatives included shipment of spent fuel off 
site, and other methods to increase onsite spent fuel storage capacity, 
as well as the no action alternative. In the first category, the 
alternatives of shipping spent fuel from Diablo Canyon to a permanent 
Federal Repository, to a reprocessing facility, or to a privately owned 
spent fuel storage facility were determined to be non-viable 
alternatives, as no such facilities

[[Page 61839]]

are currently available in the United States, and shipping the spent 
fuel overseas is impractical in light of the political, legal, and 
logistical uncertainties and the high cost. Shipping the DCPP spent 
fuel to another nuclear power plant was also determined to be a non-
viable alternative, because the receiving utility would have to be 
licensed to store the DCPP spent fuel, and it is unlikely that another 
utility would be willing to accept it, in light of their own 
limitations on spent fuel storage capacity.
    Other onsite storage alternatives considered by the applicant 
included increasing the capacity of the existing spent fuel pools by 
re-racking or spent fuel rod consolidation, or construction of a new 
spent fuel storage pool. The applicant has previously amended the DCPP 
licenses to permit re-racking, and although further re-racking is 
possible, it could require extensive modifications to the spent fuel 
pools and supporting systems, and would not accommodate all of the 
spent fuel to be generated for the duration of the plant's current 
operating licenses. Spent fuel rod consolidation is also possible, but 
would require replacement of the existing storage racks to support the 
greater weight of the consolidated assemblies, and would require 
extensive operational resources to reconfigure all the fuel assemblies 
currently in storage. This alternative was also considered impractical, 
due to the high cost and the significant occupational exposure to be 
incurred. Similarly, although the applicant could construct an 
additional spent fuel pool, the high cost associated with constructing 
and maintaining such a facility and all of the necessary support 
equipment, coupled with the significant occupational exposures 
resulting from the extensive fuel handling operations, make this 
alternative impractical.
    The no action alternative could result in the extended or permanent 
shutdown of both DCPP units many years before the expiration of their 
current operating licenses, once the current capacity of the units' 
spent fuel pools is reached. The electrical generation capacity lost 
would likely be replaced by fossil-fueled plants, which could result in 
greater environmental impacts and higher costs for electricity. In the 
short-term, the shutdown of the DCPP would have a negative impact on 
the local economy and infrastructure. For these reasons, the no action 
alternative is not considered a practical alternative.
    As discussed in the EA, the Commission has concluded there are no 
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Diablo 
Canyon ISFSI, and other alternatives were not pursued because of 
significantly higher costs, additional occupational exposures, and the 
unavailability of offsite storage options.
    Agencies and Persons Contacted: Officials from the California 
Energy Commission (CEC), the California Office of Historic Preservation 
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were contacted in preparing the 
staff's environmental assessment. The CEC provided comments by letter 
dated August 12, 2003; these comments have been addressed in the EA.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed 
ISFSI relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51, and has 
prepared an Environmental Assessment. Based on the EA, the staff 
concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-
radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that 
issuance of a license for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at 
the Diablo Canyon ISFSI will have no significant impact on the quality 
of the human environment. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31 and 
51.32, a finding of no significant impact is appropriate and an 
environmental impact statement need not be prepared for the issuance of 
a materials license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI.
    Further details related to this proposed action are provided in the 
license application, dated December 21, 2001, as amended October 15, 
2002, and the staff's EA, dated October 24, 2003. These documents and 
others related to this proposed action are available for public 
inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Document Room, One 
White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
or from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible 
from the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the 
Public Electronic Reading Room). 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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October, 2003.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 03-27328 Filed 10-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P