[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39285-39287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14253]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-06; NRC-2016-0112]


Duke Energy; Brunswick 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 the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) in Brunswick County, North 
Carolina.

DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on 
June 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0112 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0112. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. 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 http://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 [email protected]. 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: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan 
(DFP) for the Brunswick 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. ML16144A362) 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 Brunswick 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 Brunswick ISFSI is located in Southport, North Carolina. Duke 
is authorized by NRC, under License No. SFGL-41, to store spent nuclear 
fuel at the Brunswick 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

[[Page 39286]]

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 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 BSEP.

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 the licensee'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 North 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

[[Page 39287]]

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    ML12353A033
                                    Duke's
                                    decommissionin
                                    g funding plan.
February 1, 2009.................  Environmental    ML090500648
                                    Assessment for
                                    Final Rule--
                                    Decommissionin
                                    g Planning.
May 31, 2016.....................  NRC staff's      ML16144A362
                                    Final EA for
                                    the approval
                                    of the
                                    decommissionin
                                    g 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. 2016-14253 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P