[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41454-41457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17110]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2012-0168]


Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian 
Point Unit 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding 
of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment and changes to the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64, issued to 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) for 
operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and 
IP3) located in Westchester County, New York, in accordance with Title 
10 of the Code of Federal

[[Page 41455]]

Regulations (10 CFR) 50.90. The proposed changes request NRC approval 
for the transfer of spent fuel from the IP3 spent fuel pool (SFP) to 
the IP2 SFP using a newly-designed shielded transfer canister (STC), 
for further transfer to the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation (ISFSI). Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 
staff performed an environmental assessment (EA). The NRC staff did not 
identify any significant environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action based on its evaluation of the information provided in 
the licensee's application and other available information. Therefore, 
the NRC staff is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for 
the proposed action.

Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately 239 acres (97 hectares) of 
land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York. 
The facility is on the eastern bank of the Hudson River. Both IP2 and 
IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam 
supply systems. For each unit, cooling is provided by a once-through 
cooling water intake that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. 
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1), now permanently shut 
down, shares the site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 was shut down in 1974, and 
is in a safe storage condition awaiting final decommissioning.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed changes request NRC approval for the transfer of spent 
fuel from the IP3 SFP to the IP2 SFP using a newly-designed STC, for 
further transfer to the on-site ISFSI, which uses the Holtec HI-STORM 
100 dry cask storage system that has been previously certified for dry 
spent fuel storage under 10 CFR part 72. Entergy has no plans to make 
extensive physical modifications to existing plant buildings or 
property for the proposed action. The proposed action is detailed in 
the licensee's application dated July 8, 2009, Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091940176, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 28, 2009; ADAMS Accession No. 
ML092950437; October 26, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080; October 
5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML102910511; October 28, 2010, ADAMS 
Accession Nos. ML103080112 and ML103080113; July 28, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11220A079; August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession Nos. 
ML11243A174, ML11243A175; and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11327A045 and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12013A259; January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. 
ML120400604; March 2, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027, April 23, 
2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012, ADAMS Accession 
No. ML121370318. The licensee's application and supplemental 
submissions are accessible electronically from the NRC's Web site, 
www.nrc.gov.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Entergy requested the proposed action because transferring the IP3 
spent fuel from the IP3 SFP directly into dry storage casks is not 
possible due to the limitations of the 40-ton cask handling crane in 
the IP3 fuel storage building (FSB) where the SFP is located. A cask 
handling crane capacity of at least 100 tons is required to lift and 
handle the loaded HI-TRAC transfer cask licensed as part of the HI-
STORM 100 System. Entergy had previously added a single-failure-proof 
gantry crane with this capacity to the IP2 FSB, by excavating to 
bedrock and supporting the crane foundation on bedrock. An upgrade to 
the IP3 cask handling crane capacity to 100 tons or more was evaluated 
and found to be not feasible and as such results in the need for inter-
unit fuel transfer. The IP3 SFP is approaching the limit of its storage 
capacity. Spent fuel must be removed from the IP3 SFP to restore and 
maintain the ability to unload the entire IP3 reactor core into the IP3 
SFP for the remainder of its service life in order to perform 
maintenance on the reactor vessel and associated systems.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Non-Radiological Impacts

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts

    There are no potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the 
proposed action. No new construction of buildings is proposed. The work 
activities would occur within existing structures. Existing parking 
lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops, 
warehouses, and restrooms would be used during implementation of the 
proposed action. Land use conditions would not change at the Indian 
Point site. Therefore, there would be no significant impact from the 
proposed action.

Air Quality Impacts

    Some minor and short duration air quality impacts would occur 
during implementation of the fuel transfer at the site. The main source 
of air emissions would come from the vehicles driven by plant workers 
and contractors. However, air emissions would be less than is 
experienced during the routine refueling outages once each year. 
Therefore, there would be no significant impact on air quality in the 
region during and following implementation of the proposed action.

Surface Water Impacts

    There are no potential surface water impacts from the proposed 
action. No new use of surface water or effluent discharges into surface 
water will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore, there 
would be no significant impact to surface water resources during 
implementation of the proposed action.

Groundwater Impacts

    There are no potential groundwater impacts from the proposed 
action. No new use of groundwater or effluent discharges into 
groundwater will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore, 
there would be no significant impact to groundwater resources during 
implementation of the proposed action.

Aquatic Resources Impacts

    There are no potential impacts to aquatic resources from the 
proposed action. No new effluent discharges into the aquatic 
environment will be made as part of the proposed action. Therefore, 
there would be no significant impact to aquatic resources during 
implementation of the proposed action.

Terrestrial Resources Impacts

    There are no potential impacts to terrestrial resources from the 
proposed action. No new land areas will be disturbed and no new 
effluent discharges will be made as part of the proposed action. 
Therefore, there would be no significant impact to terrestrial 
resources during implementation of the proposed action.

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts

    There are no potential impacts to threatened and endangered species 
from the proposed action. No new withdrawals from the Hudson River or 
any new effluent discharges into the aquatic environment will be made 
as part of the proposed action. Therefore, there would be no 
significant impact to threatened and endangered species during 
implementation of the proposed action.

[[Page 41456]]

Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts

    There are no potential impacts to historic and archaeological 
resources from the proposed action because no new construction on the 
site or vicinity of the site is proposed. The work activities would 
occur within existing structures. Existing parking lots, road access, 
equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms 
would be used during implementation of the proposed action. Therefore, 
there would be no significant impact to historic and archaeological 
resources from the proposed action.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed action include a 
temporary increase in the size of the workforce at the Indian Point 
site. The expected increase is much smaller than the additional 
workforce experienced during a refueling outage. Therefore, due to the 
small and temporary increase in the number of workers needed to support 
the proposed action, there are no significant socioeconomic impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Justice Impacts

    The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential 
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from 
activities associated with the proposed action at the Indian Point 
site. Such effects may include human health, biological, cultural, 
economic, or social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are 
subsets of the general population residing in the vicinity of the 
Indian Point site, and all are exposed to the same health and 
environmental effects generated from activities at the Indian Point 
site. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the 
proposed action would not have disproportionately high and adverse 
human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income 
populations residing in the vicinity of the Indian Point site.

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste

    Indian Point uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, 
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain 
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and 
Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety standards. The 
proposed action will not significantly change the types or amounts of 
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste. At the site, the volume of solid 
radioactive waste is expected to show a small increase because of the 
use of protective clothing for the workers, the disposal of used seals 
from the STC and HI-TRAC lids, and decontamination work performed on 
equipment and work areas. However, the additional volume would not have 
a significant effect on the plant's ability to handle and process the 
waste. Based on the above, there are no significant radioactive waste 
impacts associated with the proposed action.

Occupational Radiation Dose

    To protect plant workers, the licensee's radiation protection 
program monitors radiation levels throughout the plant to establish 
appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and 
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain 
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20. Entergy evaluated the 
potential occupational exposures that would result from the operational 
sequence to transfer spent fuel assemblies from the IP3 SFP to the IP2 
SFP. The evaluation concluded that the radiation dose to workers would 
be within the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The NRC staff 
reviewed the dose estimates for the transfer operations in its safety 
evaluation for the proposed action and concluded that the dose 
estimates for the operations activities are reasonable. Based on the 
above, there are no significant occupational dose impacts associated 
with the proposed action.

Offsite Doses to Members of the Public

    The licensee will maintain radiological controls in accordance with 
its radiation protection program throughout the spent fuel transfer 
operations. The licensee's evaluation of the potential dose to a member 
of the public at the boundary of the plant's controlled area during the 
proposed action shows that offsite doses would be within the public 
dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301. Based on the above, the offsite radiation 
dose to members of the public would continue to be within NRC 
regulatory limits and, therefore, would not be significant.

Accident Doses to Members of the Public

    Various accidents were postulated, such as a dropped fuel assembly, 
extended time delays during transfer operations, a dropped shielded 
cask full of spent fuel, a fire involving the cask transporter, a 
tornado during transfer operations, and a tipover of the shielded cask 
full of spent fuel. These accidents were analyzed by the licensee and 
the analyses were reviewed by NRC staff to assure that there is no 
undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. The licensee 
calculated the dose to a member of the public at the boundary of the 
plant's controlled area for accident conditions involving the spent 
fuel transfer operations. The licensee's analyses demonstrate that the 
dose to members of the public will be within the public dose limits in 
10 CFR 20.1301. The NRC staff, in its safety evaluation, found the 
licensee's evaluation to be reasonable. Based on the above, the offsite 
radiation dose to members of the public in the event of a fuel transfer 
accident would continue to be within NRC regulatory limits and, 
therefore, would not be significant.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action the licensee considered 
using a spent fuel cask which was already licensed as a transportation 
package under 10 CFR part 71. The licensee identified one cask which 
could be lifted by the existing IP3 crane, but it only had the capacity 
for a single fuel assembly. This would severely limit the rate of fuel 
transfer and would also increase the total radiation exposure to the 
workers involved with fuel movement. Using that cask would entail 
similar operations as using the STC, which holds up to 12 fuel 
assemblies, but the result would be almost 12 times as many trips from 
the IP3 FSB to the IP2 FSB.
    The NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., 
the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result 
in no change in the current environmental impacts. However, if the 
proposed action were not approved for IP2 and IP3, Entergy would have 
to consider installing an IP3 spent fuel cask handing crane with at 
least a 100-ton capacity to lift and handle its standard HI-TRAC fuel 
transfer cask. Such an action would require major upgrades to plant 
equipment and modifications to plant structures, as well as radiation 
doses to workers in the IP3 FSB during the construction process.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
IP2, dated September 30, 1972, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072390276 and 
ML072390278, or the Final Environmental Statement for IP3, dated 
February 28, 1975,

[[Page 41457]]

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072390284 and ML072390286.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 17, 2012, the NRC 
staff consulted with the designated New York State official regarding 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State official 
had no comments on the environmental impacts.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC staff 
concludes that granting the proposed action will not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 
staff has determined it is not necessary to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated July 8, 2009, Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091940176, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 28, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. 
ML092950437; October 26, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093020080; October 
5, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML102910511; October 28, 2010, ADAMS 
Accession Nos. ML103080112 and ML103080113; July 28, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11220A079; August 23, 2011, ADAMS Accession Nos. 
ML11243A174, ML11243A175; and ML11243A220; October 28, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11327A045 and ML11327A046; December 15, 2011, ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12013A259; January 11, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. 
ML120400604; March 2, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A027, April 23, 
2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12129A457, and May 7, 2012, ADAMS Accession 
No. ML121370318. Publicly available versions of the 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 
through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
in the NRC Electronic Library at 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 by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, 
or send an email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Boska, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, Mail Stop 0-8C2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-2901, or by email at 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-17110 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P