[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