[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57899-57900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 68, ``Criticality
Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating
License No. DPR-20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (NMC), for
operation of the
[[Page 57900]]
Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt NMC from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1)
during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part
72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in the Palisades'
spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's
application of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following
requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of
detecting criticality events:
Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any
one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be
safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions
feasible by unborated water.
Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary
to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are
met. NMC stated in its August 25, 2005, letter that applying the 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1) criticality prevention standards to dry shielded canister
loading operations, conducted in connection with a 10 CFR part 72
license would result in undue hardship or other costs that are
significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by
others similarly situated.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that if the exemption described above is not granted, it
would result in an undue hardship. The details of the NRC staff's
safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued
as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent release off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e, the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Addendum to the Final
Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Palisades Nuclear
Plant dated February 1978.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On September 30, 2005, the staff consulted with the Michigan State
official, Mary Ann Elzerman, of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see NMC's
letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web
site, http://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 at 1-800-
397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-19921 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P