51112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

request: 89,465 (81,765 reporting hours NUCLEAR REGULATORY For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. + 7,700 recordkeeping hours) or an COMMISSION Chandu P. Patel, average of 125 hours per response Project Manager, Section 2, Project (81,765 reporting burden hours/655 [Docket No. 50–400] Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project responses) and an average of 13 hours Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. per recordkeeper (7,700 recordkeeping Carolina Power & Light Company, et al. burden hours/601 recordkeepers). [FR Doc. 04–18732 Filed 8–16–04; 8:45 am] Notice of Withdrawal of Application for BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 9. An indication of whether Section Amendment to Facility Operating 3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not License applicable. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 10. Abstract: Part 70 establishes The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory COMMISSION requirements for licenses to own, Commission (the Commission) has [Docket Nos. 50–413 AND 50–414] acquire, receive, possess, use, and granted the request of Carolina Power & transfer special nuclear material. The Light Company (the licensee) to Duke Energy Corporation; Concerning information in the applications, reports, withdraw its December 8, 2003, the Application for Irradiation of Mixed and records is used by NRC to make application for proposed amendment to Oxide Lead Test Assemblies at licensing and other regulatory Facility Operating License No. NFP–63 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and determinations concerning the use of for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 2; Environmental Assessment and special nuclear material. The revised Plant, Unit 1, located in Wake and Finding of No Significant Impact estimate of burden reflects the addition Chatham Counties, North Carolina. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of requirements for documentation for The proposed amendment would Commission (NRC) is considering termination or transfer of licensed have revised the Technical issuance of an amendment to the activities, and modifying licenses. Specifications to allow a one-time Facility Operating Licenses to permit A copy of the final supporting revision to the steam generator (SG) the use of mixed oxide (MOX) lead test statement may be viewed free of charge inservice inspection frequency assemblies (LTAs) in one of the two at the NRC Public Document Room, One requirements to allow a 40-month Catawba units and is considering the granting of exemptions from (1) the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville inspection interval after the first requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD inservice inspection following SG replacement rather than after two Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20852. OMB clearance requests are 50.44(a), 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) and 10 CFR available at the NRC worldwide Web consecutive inspections resulting in C– 1 classification. Part 50, Appendix K with respect to the site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ use of M5TM fuel rod cladding; (2) 10 The Commission had previously doc-comment/omb/index.html. The CFR 50.46(a)(1) and Appendix K to Part issued a Notice of Consideration of document will be available on the NRC 50 with respect to the use of MOX fuel; home page site for 60 days after the Issuance of Amendment published in and (3) certain physical security signature date of this notice. the Federal Register on February 17, requirements of 10 CFR Parts 11 and 73 2004 (69 FR 7519). However, by letter Comments and questions should be that are usually required at fuel dated August 6, 2004, the licensee directed to the OMB reviewer listed fabrication facilities for the protection of withdrew the proposed change. below by September 16, 2004. strategic quantities of special nuclear Comments received after this date will For further details with respect to this material. A similar request for an be considered if it is practical to do so, action, see the application for exemption from the requirements of 10 but assurance of consideration cannot amendment dated December 8, 2004 CFR Part 50.44(a) with respect to the use TM be given to comments received after this and the licensee’s letter dated August 6, of M5 fuel rod cladding is not being date. 2004, which withdrew the application granted since 10 CFR Part 50.44 has for license amendment. Documents may been changed and an exemption from it OMB Desk Officer, Office of be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at is no longer necessary. The amended Information and Regulatory Affairs the NRC’s Public Document Room license and exemptions would apply to (3150–0009), NEOB–10202, Office of (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Renewed Facility Operating License Management and Budget, Washington, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52, issued to DC 20503. Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke, the Comments can also be submitted by Maryland. Publicly available records licensee), for operation of the Catawba telephone at (202) 395–3087. will be accessible electronically from Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, the Agencywide Documents Access and (Catawba) located in York County, The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda South Carolina. Therefore, pursuant to Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233. Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day at the NRC Web site, http:// environmental assessment (EA) and of August 2004. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. finding of no significant impact For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Persons who do not have access to (FONSI). Beth St. Mary, ADAMS or who encounter problems in 1.0 Introduction Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the accessing the documents located in The NRC staff has organized the Chief Information Officer. ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR discussion and evaluation to provide [FR Doc. 04–18730 Filed 8–16–04; 8:45 am] Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– users with the context of the proposed 397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail BILLING CODE 7590–01–P action, supporting information that is to [email protected]. available for tiering, the independent Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day analyses performed, technical bases, of August 2004. and NRC conclusions. The following

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51113

structure was crafted to aid in its amendment for accompanying changes issued its final EIS on surplus presentation: to the Catawba Technical Specifications plutonium disposition (SPD), or SPD 1.0 Introduction (TSs) contained in Appendix A of each EIS, DOE/EIS–0283 (Reference 13). A 2.0 Background of the Catawba Nuclear Station supplemental analysis to the SPD EIS 3.0 Need for and Description of the Proposed operating licenses. was issued by DOE in April 2003, Action The NRC staff has prepared this EA to specifically addressing changes to the 4.0 Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts comply with its National Environmental SPD program as it eliminated some of of the Proposed Action Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities to the alternatives, DOE/EIS–0283–SA1 5.0 Radiological Environmental Impacts of evaluate the environmental impacts (Reference 15), hereafter referred to as the Proposed Action resulting from Duke’s proposed action. 6.0 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment Supplement Analysis 1, and modified of Resources An EA is a concise public document its Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD 7.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts prepared by the NRC to: (1) Briefly indicated that the disposition program 8.0 Mitigation provide sufficient evidence and analysis would implement the National policy 9.0 Cumulative Impacts for determining whether to prepare an that was embodied in the September 10.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action EIS or a FONSI; (2) aid the 2000 Agreement between the 11.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted Commission’s compliance with NEPA Government of the United States and 12.0 References when no EIS is necessary; and (3) 13.0 Finding of No Significant Impact the Government of the Russian facilitate preparation of an EIS when Federation Concerning Management and On the basis of the EA that follows, one is necessary. Disposition of Plutonium Designated as the Commission concludes that the The NRC has completed a number of No Longer Required for Defense proposed action will not have a environmental reviews for activities that Purposes and Related Cooperation. significant effect on the quality of the can inform this action and for activities Finally, in 2002, DOE issued the final human environment. Accordingly, the specifically at the Catawba site. These EIS on the geologic repository for the Commission has determined not to reviews were published as disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high- prepare an environmental impact environmental statements (ESs), EISs, or level radioactive waste in Nevada, DOE/ statement (EIS) for the proposed action. EAs, which were considered during the EIS–0250 (Reference 14). By letter dated February 27, 2003, as preparation of this assessment. In This EA focuses on whether the supplemented by letters dated particular, in 1983, the NRC issued the proposed action could result in a September 15, September 23, October 1 final ES (FES) related to the operation significant environmental impact (two letters), October 3 (two letters), of Catawba, NUREG–0921 (Reference different from the ones considered by November 3 and 4, December 10, 2003, 18). In 2002, the NRC issued a site- the NRC staff in earlier environmental and February 2 (two letters), March 1 specific supplement to the Generic EIS reviews. The assessment considers (three letters), March 9 (two letters), for license renewal of nuclear plants whether changes have occurred in the March 16 (two letters), March 26, March regarding Catawba, NUREG–1437, human environment in the Catawba 31, April 13, April 16, May 13, and June Supplement 9 (Reference 32) (hereafter vicinity since the NRC staff previously 17, 2004, Duke submitted a license referred to as Supplement 9). In 1999, considered environmental issues there. amendment request that, if granted, the NRC issued a final addendum to the In a number of issue areas, the NRC would authorize the irradiation of four Generic EIS for license renewal of references work that was documented in mixed uranium and plutonium oxide nuclear plants regarding the potential other publicly available environmental MOX LTAs at either Catawba, or impacts of transporting spent nuclear documents, for example, the EISs McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), fuel in the vicinity of a single high-level referenced above. In Supplement 9, the Units 1 and 2, to support the U.S. waste repository, NUREG–1437, NRC staff evaluated the environmental Department of Energy (DOE) program Addendum 1 (Reference 26). In 2001, impacts expected to result from for the disposition of fissile material. the NRC issued the final EIS on the continued operation and maintenance of The DOE is responsible for construction and operation of an the two Catawba facilities for an implementing the national policy for independent spent fuel storage additional 20 years beyond the original disposition of fissile material. Duke has installation in Utah, NUREG–1714 license period. The Catawba plant requested that the NRC staff’s review (Reference 30). Finally, in 2003, the operations for the proposed action only consider Catawba, as the proposed NRC issued a draft EIS on the would be conducted within the current action because it no longer needed the construction and operation of a MOX option of conducting an LTA irradiation fuel fabrication facility in South license time frame; the NRC program at McGuire (Reference 6). In a Carolina, NUREG–1767 (Reference 33). environmental reviews for this time previous, separate licensing action to DOE has issued a number of frame were considered in the NRC FES support the renewal of the operating environmental documents that provide and Supplement 9. licenses for Catawba, Duke provided an useful insights to the assessment of 2.0 Background environmental report (ER) (Reference 3); issues involved in this proposed action. the ER provides useful background In fulfilling its responsibility for 2.1 The Plant and Its Environs information about the site and its developing and implementing a Catawba is located on 158 ha (391 environs. framework for the disposition of fissile acres) in York County, South Carolina, The proposed action involves material, the DOE has issued its final approximately 29 km (18 mi) southwest issuance of three exemptions (for the programmatic EIS (PEIS) on storage and of Charlotte, North Carolina. Rock Hill, use of M5TM cladding, instead of disposition of weapons-usable fissile South Carolina, the nearest city, is about zircaloy; for fuel in the form of mixed materials, DOE/EIS–0229 (Reference 10 km (6 mi) south of the site. Catawba uranium and plutonium oxide, rather 12). A supplemental analysis was issued is situated on a peninsula that protrudes than uranium oxide; and from certain by DOE in November 2003, specifically into Lake Wylie, a man-made lake physical security requirements usually addressing the fabrication of MOX LTAs created by the Wylie Dam on the required at fabrication facilities for the in Europe, DOE/EIS–0229–SA3 Catawba River. The lake was initially protection of strategic quantities of (Reference 16), hereafter referred to as impounded in 1904. Present full pond special nuclear material) and a license Supplement Analysis 3. The DOE has was obtained in 1924 when an increase

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51114 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

in the dam height raised the water level Corporation. The current Unit 1 SGs, and supplies water to the standby NSW and increased the size of the lake. Duke installed in 1996, were supplied by pond. Catawba does not use cooling either owns the land under the lake or Babcock & Wilcox International. ponds for normal operations; however, the flood rights to that land. The lake The reactor containment is housed in it does have a standby NSW pond. The level fluctuates in accordance with a separate free-standing steel purpose of this pond is to provide an hydroelectric generation needs. Lake containment structure within a ultimate heat sink in the event of a rapid Wylie is a source of drinking water for reinforced concrete shield building. The decline in water level in Lake Wylie. several municipalities and supports containment employs the ice condenser The pond is isolated from the plant extensive recreational use by fishermen, pressure-suppression concept, and is service water during normal plant boaters, water skiers, and swimmers. As designed to withstand environmental operations. The average daily discharge Lake Wylie is situated in both North effects and the internal pressure and back into Lake Wylie from Catawba is Carolina and South Carolina, both States temperature accompanying a postulated 230 million L/d (60.7 MGD). The are involved in the protection, from a loss-of-coolant accident or steam-line consumptive water losses result from watershed perspective, of Lake Wylie’s break. Together with its engineered evaporation and drift from the six water quality. Lake Wylie exhibits safety features, the containment mechanical-draft cooling towers that thermal and oxygen dynamics similar to structure for each unit is designed to provide cooling for the condenser other southeastern reservoirs of adequately retain fission products that circulating water system. comparable size, depth, flow conditions, may escape from the reactor coolant The discharge structure is located on and trophic status. Lake Wylie supports system (RCS). the Big Allison Creek arm of Lake a good warm-water fishery. The Catawba reactors are licensed for Wylie. This structure is designed to Each reactor is a pressurized light- fuel that is slightly enriched uranium allow warm discharge water to float on water reactor (LWR) with four steam dioxide, up to 5 percent by weight the surface with a minimum amount of generators (SGs) producing steam that uranium-235. The Catawba reactor core mixing. Approximately 1.48 million L/ turns turbines to generate electricity. has several different fuel designs that d (0.39 MGD) from the conventional Duke refuels each Catawba nuclear unit will reside in the core with the MOX waste water treatment system and from on an 18-to 24-month schedule. LTAs. They will include the the sewage treatment system is Catawba has approximately 1200 full- Westinghouse Robust Fuel Assembly discharged to Lake Wylie. Catawba time workers and site contractors design and the Westinghouse Next obtains potable water from the city of employed by Duke during normal plant Generation fuel design. Rock Hill, South Carolina. In addition, operations. During refueling periods, Catawba uses water from Lake Wylie there are a total of three groundwater site employment increases by as many for cooling and service water. Lake supply wells at the Catawba site. These as 500 workers for temporary duty over Wylie is the seventh of 11 wells supply water on a periodic basis a 30-to 40-day period. At the behest of impoundments in the 410-km (255-mi) to remote locations and for seasonal the DOE and its fissile material Catawba-Wateree Project managed by irrigation. The average annual disposition program, Duke has Duke and licensed by the Federal groundwater withdrawal rate from these requested that NRC authorize it to use Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). wells is 1.89 L/s (30 gallons per minute four MOX fuel LTAs for up to three Lake Wylie extends 45 km (28 mi) [gpm]). refueling cycles. The four LTAs upstream from Wylie Dam to Mountain Catawba uses liquid, gaseous, and contemplated under this action would Island Dam. Flow through the Catawba- solid radioactive waste management be used in lieu of four uranium dioxide Wateree Project is managed by Duke to systems to collect and process the fuel assemblies out of 193 assemblies in optimize hydroelectric generation, liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes that the reactor core. The LTAs would not provide flood control, meet FERC are the by-products of operations. These require a physical modification to the minimum release requirements, and systems process radioactive liquid, reactors or to any support structures, maintain a constant and reliable water gaseous, and solid effluents before they laydown areas or storage facilities, nor supply for thermoelectric generating are released to the environment. The would it result in any change in stations, surrounding communities, and waste gas and solid waste systems are infrastructure or in any land disturbance industry. The average daily withdrawal common to both units. Portions of the on the Catawba site. from Lake Wylie for the cooling water liquid radioactive waste system are Catawba consists of two reactor and other service water systems is 386 shared. The waste disposal systems for buildings, two turbine buildings, two million liters per day (L/d) (102 million Catawba meet the design objectives of diesel generator buildings, six gallons per day [MGD]). Water from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Numerical mechanical draft cooling towers, one Lake Wylie is taken in through two Guide for Design Objectives and shared service building, one auxiliary intake structures. The low-pressure Limiting Conditions for Operation to building, one water chemistry building, service water (LPSW) intake structure is Meet the Criterion ‘‘As Low as is and one switchyard. The cooling water located on the Beaver Dam Creek arm of Reasonably Achievable’’ for Radioactive intake and discharge structures and Lake Wylie. Trash racks and traveling Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear standby nuclear service water pond are screens are used to remove trash and Power Reactor Effluents). These systems shared features. The reactors each have debris from this intake water. The intake control the processing, disposal, and four reactor coolant loops, each of structure is designed for a maximum release of radioactive liquid, gaseous, which contains a SG that produces water velocity of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) in and solid wastes. Radioactive material steam and turns turbines to generate front of the trash racks at the maximum in the reactor coolant is the source of electricity. Each unit is designed to design drawdown of Lake Wylie. The gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive operate at core power levels up to 3411 LPSW system supplies water for various wastes in LWRs. Radioactive fission megawatts (thermal) (MW[t]), with a functions on the secondary side of the products build up within the fuel as a corresponding net electrical output of plant. The nuclear service water (NSW) consequence of the fission process. approximately 1129 megawatts (electric) intake structure also is located in the These fission products mostly are (MW[e]). The nuclear steam supply Beaver Dam Creek arm. This intake contained in the sealed fuel rods, but system for each unit and the Unit 2 SGs supplies cooling water to various heat small quantities escape and contaminate were supplied by Westinghouse Electric loads in the primary side of the plant the reactor coolant. Neutron activation

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51115

of the primary coolant system also is and Accord (glyphosate). Spot selected. The LTAs would be shipped responsible for coolant contamination. treatments then are applied once every from the selected marine port by truck. Nonfuel solid waste results from 3 years using Arsenal, Accord, If the proposed action is approved, treating and separating radionuclides Garlon4A, and Krenite. Herbicide then, once the LTAs are inserted into from gases and liquids and from treatments in wetlands are limited to the reactor and are irradiated, the DOE removing contaminated material from Arsenal and Accord, which are proposes to take possession of a small various reactor areas. Solid wastes also approved for use in wetlands. In portion of the irradiated fuel and to consist of reactor components, addition, Duke cooperates with the conduct post-irradiation examination equipment, and tools removed from South Carolina Department of Natural and testing at one of its National service, as well as contaminated Resources regarding protection of rare laboratories. The irradiated LTAs that protective clothing, paper, rags, and species and partners with The Wildlife remain at Catawba are expected to be other trash generated from plant design Federation on vegetation management managed in a manner similar to other modifications and operations and in some portions of the rights-of-way. spent fuel and are expected to be routine maintenance activities. Solid shipped to a high-level waste repository waste may be shipped to a waste 2.2 Supporting DOE Analyses for ultimate disposition; because LTAs processor for volume reduction before DOE has issued a number of will be used in lieu of other fuel disposal at a licensed burial site environmental documents that provide assemblies, the total number of spent (Reference 3). Spent resins and filters useful insights to the assessment of fuel rods that have to be managed by are stored or packaged for shipment to issues involved in this proposed action. Duke at Catawba would be reduced by a licensed offsite processing or disposal In fulfilling its responsibility for the small number that will return to the facility. developing and implementing a DOE under this campaign. As part of Routine maintenance performed on framework for the disposition of fissile this action to assess the impacts of plant systems and components is material, DOE has issued its final PEIS transporting the spent fuel rods to a necessary for safe and reliable on storage and disposition of weapons- high-level waste repository, the NRC operation. Maintenance activities usable fissile materials, DOE/EIS–0229 staff will assume that DOE will not conducted at Catawba include (Reference 12). A supplemental analysis remove any of the spent fuel rods from inspection, testing, and surveillance to to the PEIS was issued by DOE in the LTAs, but will ship complete fuel maintain the current licensing basis of November 2003, specifically addressing assemblies to a permanent geologic the plant and to ensure compliance with the fabrication of MOX LTAs in Europe, repository. environmental and safety requirements. DOE/EIS–0229-SA3 (Reference 16), Certain activities can be performed 3.0 Need for and Description of hereafter referred to as Supplement while the reactor is operating, but others Proposed Action Analysis 3. The DOE has issued its final require that the plant be shut down. Duke proposes three exemptions (for EIS on SPD, or SPD EIS, DOE/EIS–0283 Long-term outages are scheduled for the use of M5TM cladding instead of (Reference 13). A supplemental analysis refueling and for certain types of repairs zircaloy; for fuel in the form of mixed to the SPD EIS was issued by DOE in or maintenance, such as replacement of uranium and plutonium oxide, rather April 2003, specifically addressing a major component. Fuel rods that have than uranium oxide; and from physical exhausted a certain percentage of their changes to the SPD program as it security requirements usually required fuel and are removed from the reactor eliminated some of the alternatives, at fabrication facilities for the protection core for disposal are called spent fuel. Supplement Analysis 1. Finally, in of strategic quantities of special nuclear Duke refuels each of the Catawba units 2002, DOE issued the final EIS on the material) and a license amendment to every 18 to 24 months (Reference 3). geologic repository for the disposal of the TSs in Appendix A of the Catawba Each outage is typically scheduled to spent nuclear fuel and high-level operating licenses. The need for these last approximately 30 to 40 days, and radioactive waste in Nevada, DOE/EIS– changes is that they will permit the the outage schedules are staggered so 0250 (Reference 14). insertion of four LTAs containing mixed that both units are not shut down at the As background, in the following, the uranium dioxide (UO2) and plutonium same time. Typically, one-third of the NRC staff summarizes the DOE analyses dioxide (PuO2), also referred to as MOX, core is replaced at each refueling. regarding transportation risk of the fuel into one of the Catawba reactor Catawba has five 230-kV transmission LTAs to Catawba. The transportation cores and thus support the U.S. lines leaving the site from the switch and associated impacts of the MOX Department of Energy (DOE) program yard (References 3 and 18). The five LTAs to Catawba are not related to the for the disposition of fissile material. It lines are contained within rights-of-way proposed action; the complete analysis is important to note that the action is ranging from 35 to 46 m (115 to 150 ft) is included in Supplement Analysis 3. not ‘‘batch,’’ or routine widescale use of in width and from 1 to 40 km (0.7 to The LTAs would be shipped by truck MOX fuel at Catawba or any other 24.4 mi) in length covering a total of from one of three marine military ports reactor. The irradiation of four MOX 75.7 km (42.4 mi) and approximately near the Atlantic Ocean: Charleston LTAs is part of DOE’s program for fissile 295 ha (730 ac) (References 3 and 18). Naval Weapons Station (South material disposition. The rights-of-way extend out from Carolina), Yorktown Naval Weapons The physical design and material Catawba to the north, south, and west. Station (Virginia) or Naval Station composition of each LTA is identical The lines and rights-of-way were Norfolk (Virginia). The ultimate (within manufacturing tolerances); the constructed or rebuilt between 1973 and selection of the porting facility will be physical design is based on the 1983. Duke owns less than 10 percent of made by DOE and would influence the Framatome Advanced Mark BW design. the rights-of-way and has easements for transportation risk because The fuel assembly upper and lower the remaining 90 percent. Vegetation in transportation routing and distance, the nozzles are 304L stainless steel. The the rights-of-way is managed through a accident statistics for the states through lower nozzle has a debris filter which is combination of mechanical and which the route passes, and the A–286 steel alloy. The grid straps herbicide treatments (Reference 3). population distribution along located axially along the fuel assembly Initial treatments include mowing and/ transportation corridors would be are either Inconel 718 or M5TM or treatment with Arsenal (imazapyr) different, depending on which port is zirconium alloy. The hold down springs

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51116 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

on the fuel assembly top nozzle are remaining U–235 and U–238, and other impacts of the proposed action are Inconel 718. The fuel rod cladding is fission products. A MOX fuel assembly bounded by the environmental impacts M5TM zirconium alloy as well as the rod begins its life with an inventory of previously evaluated in the final EIS upper and lower end caps. The fuel rod uranium and Pu isotopes; it ends its life and Supplement 9. is filled with helium gas and contains a with the remaining uranium and Pu 4.1 Surface and Groundwater Use plenum spring manufactured from isotopes and other fission products. At either 302 or 304 stainless steel. a burnup of 50 MWd/MT (megawatt- Catawba uses water from Lake Wylie, With the exception of the M5TM days/metric ton), a fuel assembly an impoundment on the Catawba River cladding, the materials used in the fuel fabricated with MOX is estimated to for the source of main condenser assembly structural components are contain approximately 13 kg of cooling and service water at Catawba. typical of those currently or previously plutonium, whereas an LEU assembly There are three groundwater supply in use at Catawba. The M5TM alloy is a with the same burnup would contain wells on the Catawba site that are used proprietary zirconium based alloy, approximately 6 kg of plutonium. on a periodic basis to supply remote composed primarily of zirconium and Therefore, even with just the current locations and for seasonal irrigation. niobium, that has demonstrated LEU fuel in Catawba, and in all The proposed action is not expected to superior corrosion resistance and operating LWRs of this design, change the manner in which the facility reduced irradiation growth relative to plutonium already exists in substantial is operated nor does it increase surface both standard and low tin zircaloy. quantities. or groundwater usage from that Although Catawba has not previously No other primary or secondary plant previously considered by the NRC staff used the M5TM alloy, the alloy has been structures, systems or components are in the final EIS (Reference 18) and used in at least four other pressurized- affected by this application. None of the Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff water reactors (PWRs). plant structures, systems or concludes that the environmental The fuel pellet contains a mixture of components, including waste systems, impacts of the proposed use of MOX UO2 and PuO2, thus, the term MOX. The will be modified and none of these LTAs are bounded by the environmental fuel is manufactured through a sintering systems will be operated in a different impacts previously evaluated in the process like that used for the current manner or with different operating final EIS and Supplement 9. fuel which consists of only UO . The 2 limits because of the proposed action. 4.2 Water Quality current fuel is referred to as low- The proposed use of the MOX enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The fuel assemblies does not represent the Pursuant to the Federal Water proposed in this application is referred introduction of any new sources of Pollution Control Act of 1977 (the Clean to as MOX fuel and has only been used compounds, materials or elements Water Act), the South Carolina in a limited number of applications in beyond the new clad alloy or the MOX Department of Health and PWRs in the U.S. However, reactors fuel. In addition, Duke is not requesting Environmental Control (SCDHEC) located in Europe have more than 35 any changes to the TSs on coolant regulates the impacts of non- years of experience with MOX fuel. As system specific activity or the radiological effluents discharged from of 1998, three European fabrication radioactive effluent controls program Catawba via a National Pollutant plants have produced more than nor is it planning any changes to the Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 435,000 MOX fuel rods, which have detailed radioactive effluent controls in permit. Adherence by the licensee to the been used in 35 different PWRs. The the selected licensee commitments in provisions of the permit maintains plutonium for use in the Catawba fuel Chapter 16 of the updated final safety water quality standards in Lake Wylie will be obtained from highly-enriched evaluation report (UFSAR). and in the vicinity that could material blended down to a fissile potentially be affected by operation of content useful for reactor operations. By 4.0 Non-Radiological Environmental Catawba. The current NPDES contrast, the European MOX fuel is Impacts of the Proposed Action wastewater permit for Catawba, issued recycled from commercial operating The NRC staff has completed a on April 30, 2001, expires on June 30, reactor fuel. The source of the fuel number of environmental reviews for 2005. feedstock determines its grade; Catawba activities specifically at the Catawba The proposed action is not expected fuel has been referred to as ‘‘weapons site. These reviews were published as to change the types, characteristics, or grade’’ and the European fuel as ESs, EISs, or EAs. These reviews were quantities of non-radiological effluents ‘‘reactor grade.’’ The Catawba fuel will considered during the completion of discharged to the environment. There be chemically polished to meet this assessment and provide a current will be no change in the use or specifications for reactor operations baseline of non-radiological and discharge of biocides or other chemicals and, therefore, ‘‘grade’’ does not have a radiological environmental analyses that at Catawba as a result of the proposed bearing on the presence of impurities. serve as a platform to consider whether, action. As discussed above, this During manufacturing, the and if so, how the human environment application is for the use of four MOX composition of the LEU fuel is can be affected by the proposed action. fuel LTAs to be irradiated in the reactor approximately 3 percent to 5 percent of In particular, in 1983, the NRC issued core. Aside from the LTAs isolated in the U–235 isotope with the balance of the final EIS related to the operation of the reactor core, the proposed action the uranium almost completely Catawba, NUREG–0921 (Reference 18). will not introduce any materials or consisting of the U–238 isotope. During In 2002, the NRC issued the final chemicals into the plant that could reactor operations a substantial portion supplement to the Generic EIS for affect the characteristics or types of non- of the uranium in LEU fuel is converted license renewal of nuclear plants, radiological effluents. In addition, the into plutonium. The conversion of regarding Catawba, NUREG–1437, method of operation of non-radiological uranium to plutonium in LWR fuel, Supplement 9. In this assessment, the waste systems will not be affected by whether LEU or MOX, is a function of NRC staff has focused its attention on the proposed change. There are no burnup. An LEU fuel assembly begins whether the proposed irradiation of four known mechanisms associated with a its life with an inventory of U–238 and MOX LTAs has the potential to change change in fuel isotopic content that U–235 and ends its life with an how an environmental resource may be would alter the non-radiological effluent inventory that includes Pu isotopes, the affected and whether the environmental quantity. None of the parameters

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51117

regulated under the Clean Water Act from the breakdown of air near high- background noise level increases will be changed by the proposed action. voltage conductors. Through the years, beyond 60–65 dB(A), noise complaints The proposed action is not expected to line designs have been developed that increase significantly. Noise levels change the manner in which the facility greatly reduce corona effects. The below 60–65 dB(A) are generally is operated nor does it alter water transmission lines associated with the considered to be of small significance. quality from that previously considered Catawba facility meet the 1997 version The principal sources of noise at by the NRC staff in the final EIS of National Electric Safety Code and Catawba are the result of operation of (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. corona effects are minimal on those mechanical draft cooling towers, Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that lines. transformers, and loudspeakers. These the environmental impacts of the SCDHEC has issued a Clean Air Act noise sources are not perceived by large proposed use of MOX LTAs are air emissions and operating permit to numbers of people offsite. In addition, bounded by the environmental impacts Catawba for the release of controlled these sources of noise are sufficiently previously evaluated in the final EIS amounts of effluents to the atmosphere distant from critical receptors outside and Supplement 9. resulting from operation of the the plant boundaries that the noise is emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and attenuated to nearly ambient levels and 4.3 Thermal Effluents other equipment on the site. The is scarcely noticeable. The proposed action will not change Charlotte, North Carolina, metropolitan The proposed action is not expected the licensed power level for Catawba. area has not been identified as a non- to change the manner in which the There will be no increase in the amount attainment or maintenance area, facility is operated nor does it alter of heat that is produced by the facility therefore, no assessment of the vehicle ambient noise level onsite or beyond the and subsequently discharged via cooling exhaust emissions anticipated at the site boundary at Catawba from that tower blowdown to Lake Wylie. time of peak workforce is required by previously considered by the NRC staff Therefore, there will be no change to the the Clean Air Act. The proposed use of in the final EIS (Reference 18) and discharge temperature and no increase the MOX LTAs will not result in an Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff in the impact of thermal effluents on increase in station electrical output or a concludes that the environmental aquatic biota. The proposed action is change in the operation of the station impacts of the proposed use of MOX not expected to change the manner in EDGs or other equipment. LTAs are bounded by the environmental which the facility is operated nor does The proposed action is not expected impacts previously evaluated in the it alter thermal effluents that may affect to change the manner in which the final EIS and Supplement 9. aquatic biota from that previously facility is operated nor does it alter air considered by the NRC staff in the final quality, either as a result of release of 4.7 Thermophilic Organisms EIS (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. increased amounts of effluents to the Thermophilic organisms are known to Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that atmosphere or as a result of corona inhabit cooling tower basins and natural the environmental impacts of the associated with the transmission lines bodies of water in the southern latitudes proposed use of MOX LTAs are for Catawba, from that previously of the U.S., including water bodies in bounded by the environmental impacts considered by the NRC staff in the final the vicinity of Catawba. Waste heat from previously evaluated in the final EIS EIS (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. power plant facilities could stimulate and Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the growth of these organisms, some of the environmental impacts of the which are known to be potentially 4.4 Impingement and Entrainment proposed use of MOX LTAs are harmful to man. The proposed action does not involve bounded by the environmental impacts The use of MOX LTAs will not change an increase in the licensed thermal previously evaluated in the final EIS the licensed power level at Catawba. power level for Catawba that would and Supplement 9. There will be no increase in the amount require additional cooling. Because of heat that is produced by the facility 4.6 Noise there will be no increase in the volume and subsequently discharged via cooling of water drawn into the plant, there will The proposed action will not result in tower blowdown to Lake Wylie that be no incremental impact on aquatic any increase in ambient noise level would change the discharge temperature biota associated with the withdrawal of either on-site or beyond the site or that would increase the impact of cooling water from Lake Wylie. The boundary. When noise levels are below thermal discharges on thermophilic proposed action is not expected to the levels that result in hearing loss, organisms. The proposed action is not change the manner in which the facility impacts have been judged primarily in expected to change the manner in which is operated nor does it alter terms of adverse public reactions to the the facility is operated nor would it alter impingement of adult or juvenile fish or noise. As noted in the Generic EIS for the abundance of pathogenic on the entrainment of fish eggs and License Renewal, NUREG–1437 thermophilic microbiological organisms larvae from that previously considered (Reference 24), no nuclear plants have due to heated discharges from Catawba by the NRC staff in the final EIS offsite noise levels sufficient to cause from that previously considered by the (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. hearing loss. Generally, power plant NRC staff in the final EIS (Reference 18) Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that sites do not result in offsite levels more and Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC the environmental impacts of the than 10 dB(A) above background. Noise staff concludes that the environmental proposed use of MOX LTAs are level increases more than 10 dB(A) impacts of the proposed use of MOX bounded by the environmental impacts would be expected to lead to LTAs are bounded by the environmental previously evaluated in the final EIS interference with outdoor speech impacts previously evaluated in the and Supplement 9. communication, particularly in rural final EIS and Supplement 9. areas or low-population areas, such as 4.5 Air Quality Catawba, where the background noise 4.8 Aquatic Ecology Transmission lines have been level is in the range of 45–55 dB(A). Recently, in Supplement 9, the NRC associated with the production of Generally, noise surveys around major staff evaluated and disclosed the minute amounts of ozone and oxides of sources of noise such as large highways impacts resulting from the current mode nitrogen as a result of corona discharges and airports have found that, when the of operation and that are expected to

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51118 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

occur during the extended term of the during normal plant operations. During previously considered by the NRC staff renewed operating licenses at Catawba. refueling periods, site employment in the final EIS (Reference 18) and The NRC staff has considered the increases by as many as 500 workers for Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff potential impacts of the proposed action temporary duty over a 30-to 40-day concludes that the environmental on water use and quality, impingement period. Even if a limited number of impacts of the proposed use of MOX and entrainment, thermal effluents, and additional security personnel were LTAs are bounded by the environmental thermophilic organisms. The proposed hired to implement the proposed action, impacts previously evaluated in the action is not expected to change the it will not significantly increase the final EIS and Supplement 9. manner in which the facility is operated number of licensee staff or contractors 4.13 Cultural Resources and Historic nor does it alter any resource employed at the facility; therefore, there Properties components associated with aquatic would be no noticeable impact on ecology at Catawba from that previously housing or transportation that might The proposed action will not result in considered by the NRC staff in the final result from an increase in workforce. any changes in off-site land use or in EIS (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. Likewise, there will be no need for any land-disturbing activities. There Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that additional public services, such as for will be no physical changes to the the environmental impacts of the public safety, public utilities, social existing facility or disturbances to proposed use of MOX LTAs are services, or education. Finally, no undeveloped portions of the site. The bounded by the environmental impacts impacts are expected on tourism and NRC staff concludes that the use of previously evaluated in the final EIS recreation or taxes as a result of the MOX lead test assemblies at Catawba and Supplement 9. proposed action. The proposed action is will not have environmental impacts on not expected to change the manner in cultural resources and historic 4.9 Terrestrial Ecology which the facility is operated nor does properties. The proposed action is not Recently, in Supplement 9, the NRC it alter any resource components expected to change the manner in which staff evaluated and disclosed the associated with socioeconomics in the the facility is operated nor does it alter impacts resulting from the current mode Catawba vicinity from that previously any resource components associated of operation and that are expected to considered by the NRC staff in the final with cultural resources and historic occur during the extended term of the EIS (Reference 18) and Supplement 9. properties in the Catawba vicinity from renewed operating licenses at Catawba. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that that previously considered by the NRC The NRC staff has considered the the environmental impacts of the staff in the final EIS (Reference 18) and potential impacts of the proposed action proposed use of MOX LTAs are Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff on cooling tower operation, bounded by the environmental impacts concludes that the environmental transmission line operation and previously evaluated in the final EIS impacts of the proposed use of MOX maintenance, and on-site or off-site land and Supplement 9. LTAs are bounded by the environmental use. The proposed action is not impacts previously evaluated in the expected to change the manner in which 4.12 Offsite Land Use final EIS and Supplement 9. the facility is operated nor does it alter The land occupied by Catawba is in 4.14 Aesthetics any resource components associated unincorporated York County. York with terrestrial ecology at Catawba from County and its municipalities currently As noted above, the proposed action that previously considered by the NRC have land use plans and zoning will not require any physical changes to staff in the final EIS (Reference 18) and requirements that govern development the existing facility or be accompanied Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff activities within the county. Duke has by any land-disturbing activities, either concludes that the environmental not identified the need to hire off-site or on-site. Also, the proposed impacts of the proposed use of MOX additional staff to support the proposed change will not result in any changes in LTAs are bounded by the environmental action. Catawba already has over 1200 land use plans or zoning requirements impacts previously evaluated in the full-time workers employed by Duke in unincorporated York County or its final EIS and Supplement 9. and site contractors during normal plant municipalities. The proposed action is operations. During refueling periods, not expected to change the manner in 4.10 Threatened or Endangered site employment increases by as many which the facility is operated nor does Species as 500 workers for temporary duty over it alter any resource components On the basis if its conclusions of no a 30- to 40-day period. Even if a limited associated with aesthetics or viewsheds impact on aquatic or terrestrial number of additional personnel were in the Catawba vicinity from that resources as discussed above, the NRC hired to implement the proposed action, previously considered by the NRC staff staff concludes that the proposed use of it will not significantly increase the in the final EIS (Reference 18) and four MOX fuel LTAs at Catawba will number of licensee staff or contractors Supplement 9. Therefore, the NRC staff have no effect on any Federally-listed employed at the facility. The proposed concludes that the environmental threatened or endangered species or action will not have any impact on the impacts of the proposed use of MOX their designated critical habitat. local infrastructure, such as LTAs are bounded by the environmental transportation or housing in the impacts previously evaluated in the 4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts Catawba vicinity that might result from final EIS and Supplement 9. The licensee plans to implement an increased workforce. Because there additional security measures to support will not be any need to augment the 4.15 Summary activities associated with the proposed local infrastructure, the proposed In summary, the proposed irradiation action, from the time the material change will not be accompanied by any of four MOX LTAs at Catawba would (MOX) arrives on site until it is land-disturbing activities offsite. The not result in a significant change in non- irradiated. Duke has not identified the proposed action is not expected to radiological impacts in the areas of need to hire additional staff to support change the manner in which the facility surface or groundwater use, chemical or the proposed action. Catawba already is operated nor does it alter any resource thermal discharges, intake effects, air has over 1200 full-time workers components associated with land use in quality, noise, thermophilic organisms, employed by Duke and site contractors the Catawba vicinity from that aquatic or terrestrial ecology, threatened

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51119

or endangered species, socioeconomics, the failure of a LEU fuel rod would be on the type or amount of liquid off-site land use, cultural resources or present for the failure of a MOX fuel radioactive effluents that could be historic properties, aesthetics, or rod. Only slight differences in curie released from the Catawba facility. This environmental justice. No other non- content of respective isotopes would be evaluation includes a consideration of radiological impacts were identified or expected in the event of a cladding fuel cladding performance and fuel would be expected. Therefore, based on failure. integrity considerations and is based on the above discussions, the NRC staff Fission product inventories and fuel the similarity of MOX fuel to the present concludes that there are no significant gap inventories are of the same order of LEU fuel, both from a fuel design and non-radiological environmental impacts magnitude in both MOX fuel and LEU a fission product inventory perspective. associated with the proposed action. fuels. In particular, the amount of iodine The analysis takes into account the and noble gas that would be released replacement of four out of 193 fuel 5.0 Radiological Environmental into the reactor coolant in the event of assemblies with fuel assemblies Impacts of the Proposed Action a leaking fuel rod would be similar. containing MOX fuel. 5.1 Gaseous Effluents Additionally, any liquid or gaseous As fuel is irradiated, both activation effluents would be processed by the and fission products are created. The The licensee has evaluated the plant liquid waste and waste gas activation products that are created are potential impacts that could result from systems prior to release to the a function of impurities and the the proposed use of MOX LTAs on the environment. These waste treatment chemistry of the reactor coolant and the type or amount of gaseous radioactive systems would limit radioactive neutron flux that the materials effluents that could be released from the discharges to the environment as a encounter. Impurities in the reactor Catawba facility. This evaluation result of hold-up for decay, filtering, coolant and reactor coolant water includes a consideration of fuel and demineralization. The plant chemistry are independent of the fuel cladding performance and fuel integrity treatment systems are capable of treating type, whether MOX or LEU. Thermal considerations and is based on the these radioactive effluents because the neutron flux is significantly lower in similarity of MOX fuel to the present types of radioactive material in MOX MOX fuel than in LEU fuel, which LEU fuel, both from a fuel design and and LEU fuel are the same and the curie would tend to lower activation a fission product inventory perspective. content of MOX fuel is of the same order products. However, for four lead The analysis takes into account the of magnitude as LEU fuel. Thus, the assemblies, this is expected to be an replacement of four out of 193 fuel licensee is expected to maintain the insignificant effect. assemblies with the assemblies same level of radioactive control and to There are no expected changes to containing MOX fuel; this action remain within the same regulatory liquid radioactive effluents as a result of considers the four MOX LTAs. limits with the MOX fuel as for the LEU the proposed action. As discussed As fuel is irradiated, both activation fuel. above, with the exception of the M5TM and fission products are created. The Therefore, based on the materials and alloy cladding on the MOX fuel rods in activation products that are created are performance capabilities of the fuel and the LTAs, the outer surfaces of the fuel a function of impurities and the plant systems, there is no basis to expect assemblies which are exposed to the chemistry of the reactor coolant and the any change in gaseous effluent RCS and several other components are neutron flux that the materials characteristics typical of normal plant very similar to the materials that have encounter. Thermal neutron flux is operations. In addition, Duke has not been used at Catawba for many years. significantly lower in MOX fuel than in requested any changes to the TSs limits The M5TM alloy material is a zirconium- LEU fuel, which would tend to lower on RCS specific activity or to the based alloy and is more corrosion activation products. However, for four radioactive effluent controls program resistant than currently used zirconium- lead assemblies, this is expected to be and is not planning any changes to the based alloys. Therefore, the fuel an insignificant effect. selected licensee commitments of assembly surfaces exposed to reactor The outer surfaces of the fuel Chapter 16 of the UFSAR. These coolant should not interact to produce assemblies which are exposed to the requirements and commitments place any different quantity or type of RCS are the same materials which have limits on various isotopes and specify radioactive material in the RCS. been used at Catawba for many years. requirements for monitoring and The cladding performance of M5TM is The exception is the introduction of the surveillance, thereby limiting the expected to meet or exceed that of the M5TM alloy. This material is a release of gaseous radioactive effluents current zircaloy cladding, therefore, zirconium-based alloy and is more from the Catawba facility. there is not expected to be any increase corrosion resistant than currently-used The NRC staff concludes that there in the quantity of failed fuel rods. In the zirconium-based alloys. Therefore, the will be no anticipated changes in the event of failed fuel rods the MOX fuel fuel assembly surfaces exposed to type or amount of gaseous radiological could release fission products from the reactor coolant should not interact to effluents resulting from the use of MOX gap into the RCS. However, the produce any different quantity or type fuel lead assemblies compared to the chemical volume and control system of radioactive material in the RCS. current LEU fuel. The licensee will and radioactive waste systems are The performance of M5TM cladding is continue to maintain its radioactive designed to cope with fuel rod failures. expected to meet or exceed that of the gaseous effluents within license The same fission products present from current zircaloy cladding. Therefore, conditions and regulatory limits. the failure of a LEU fuel rod would be there is not expected to be any increase Therefore, there will be no additional present for the failure of a MOX fuel in the quantity of failed fuel rods. In the environmental impacts as a result of rod. Only slight differences in curie event of failed fuel rods, the MOX fuel gaseous radioactive effluents from the content of respective isotopes are could release fission products from the proposed action. expected. gap into the RCS. However, the Therefore, based on the materials and chemical volume and control system 5.2 Liquid Effluents performance capabilities of the fuel and and radioactive waste systems are Duke has evaluated the potential plant systems there is no basis to expect designed to cope with fuel rod failures. impacts that could result from the any change in liquid effluent The same fission products present from proposed use of MOX lead assemblies characteristics typical of normal plant

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51120 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

operations. In addition, Duke is not be disposed of in an off-site burial range of 0.020 to 0.042 total person-rem requesting any changes to the TSs on facility. as a result of poolside examination and RCS specific reactivity or the Therefore, based on the discussion 0.177 person-rem for each of the 10 radioactive effluent controls program, above, the NRC staff concludes that the workers performing hot-cell nor is it planning any changes to the proposed action will have no impact on examinations at ORNL would be far detailed radioactive effluent controls in waste management and solid radioactive below the regulatory limit for individual the selected licensee commitments waste. workers of 5 rem/year. Therefore, the section of Chapter 16 of the UFSAR. 5.4 Occupational Dose NRC staff concludes that there will be These requirements and commitments no significant increase in occupational place limits on the concentration of The licensee estimates that there will dose as a result of the proposed use of radioactive material released in liquid be slight increases in the radiation MOX LTAs at Catawba. exposure of its workforce during the effluents and specify requirements for 5.5 Dose to the Public monitoring and surveillance, thereby handling of MOX fuel during receipt limiting the release of liquid radioactive and handling operations. The increase Dose to the public will not be changed effluents from the Catawba facility. in dose is due to a higher dose rate from by the use of four lead assemblies at Therefore, there will be no additional a fresh MOX fuel assembly as compared Catawba during normal operations. As environmental impacts as a result of to a fresh LEU fuel assembly. The total discussed above, there is no basis to liquid radioactive effluents from the neutron and gamma dose rate at 10 contemplate an increased source of proposed action. centimeters from the face of a fresh liquid, gaseous or solid radiological MOX fuel assembly averages about 6 effluents that could contribute to 5.3 Waste Management and Solid mrem/hour, falling off to about 1.8 increased public exposure during Radioactive Waste mrem/hour at 100 centimeters normal operations. The SPD EIS states The introduction of the four LTAs (Reference 5). This is a relatively low that no change would be expected in the should have minimal impact on solid radiation field; however, it is larger than radiation dose to the general public waste. As discussed above, there is no that associated with a LEU fuel from normal operations associated with assembly, which has virtually no change to radioactive liquid effluents disposition of MOX fuel at the proposed radiation field at these distances. and no need for liquid effluent cleanup reactors (Reference 13). In addition, The initial fuel receipt, handling, and that would generate additional solid DOE has performed an analysis that inspection activities for the fresh MOX demonstrates no incremental change in radioactive waste in the form of resins fuel LTAs could result in a or evaporator bottoms. There would be doses for 16 years of reactor operation. conservatively estimated total For members of the public, the no expected impact on primary system occupational dose in the range of 0.020 licensee estimates that there will be no filters or resins associated with normal to 0.042 person-rem (Reference 5). detectable increase in public dose plant operations. However, the licensee will use the during normal operations with the MOX The quantity of waste associated with application of the As Low As fuel assemblies (Reference 5). Use of the a pool side post-irradiation examination Reasonably Achievable principles to try lead assemblies in the reactor core will program which will be conducted for to effect lower doses than are estimated. not change the characteristics of plant the MOX fuel assemblies is minimal and Radiation doses of this magnitude are effluents or water use. During normal consistent with other post-irradiation well within regulatory occupational plant operation, the type of fuel material examinations performed during exposure limits and do not represent an will have no effect on the chemistry refueling outages. This waste would be impact to worker health. There are no parameters or radioactivity in the plant small volumes of low-level waste such other expected changes in normal water systems. The fuel material is as disposable portions of anti- occupational operating doses as a result sealed inside fuel rods that are seal- contamination clothing. of the proposed action. welded and leaktight. Therefore, there The proposed action would not result Not included among the workforce on would be no direct impact on plant in an increase in authorized power the Catawba site are the workers who radioactive effluents and the associated level, therefore, there will be no will conduct hot-cell examinations of radiation exposure. increase in the amount of water required the irradiated MOX fuel after it has been to remove heat from the reactor. This taken from the Catawba reactor core and 5.6 Design-Basis Accident means that there will be no need for shipped to Oak Ridge National Consequences additional water treatment in the Laboratory (ORNL). In order to assess The models used by Duke to assess secondary system that could lead to an the impact of the proposed action on the design-basis accident (DBA) increase in the amount of spent resins workers at ORNL, the NRC staff has consequences reflect conservative and evaporator bottoms. referenced DOE’s SPD EIS to provide an assumptions to ensure that there is an The proposed action would not assessment of the occupational doses adequate safety margin. In particular, increase the number of fuel rods resulting from post-irradiation the NRC staff notes that Duke assumed irradiated in the reactor. Four examinations following irradiation of that plutonium concentration of the assemblies containing MOX fuel will the LTAs. DOE has estimated the pins in the LTAs was 5 percent. The replace four LEU assemblies in the radiological consequences for the hot- nominal LTA fuel design calls for 176 reactor core. No additional fuel cell examination of fuel assemblies at fuel pins with a plutonium assemblies will be irradiated. Therefore, ORNL. There are an estimated 10 concentration of 4.94 percent; 76 pins at this will not result in an increase in the workers associated with the hot-cell 3.35 percent, and 12 pins at 2.40 volume of solid radioactive waste from examination work, each estimated to percent. The nominal average fittings, endcaps, and springs for fuel accumulate approximately .177 person- plutonium concentration is 4.37 assemblies. rem (Reference 9). The hot-cell post- percent. Conservatively basing the The spent fuel storage racks will not irradiation examinations at ORNL will calculation on 5 percent plutonium be changed; therefore there will be no be conducted in accordance with DOE concentration provides margin to change in the volume of irradiated/ radiation protection programs and compensate for differences (e.g., contaminated material that will need to procedures Occupational doses in the manufacturing tolerances and power

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51121

history differences) between the events are limiting with regard to the Fresh MOX LTA Drop nominal design and the actual fuel as potential increase in dose that would This accident analysis is not currently loaded in the core. result if they occurred while the MOX part of the Catawba licensing basis. The differences in the initial fuel LTAs were in the core. [The loss of Duke performed this analysis to assess isotopics between MOX and LEU fuel coolant accident (LOCA) discussed the radiological consequences of a drop are potentially significant to accident below is limiting with regard to the of a fresh MOX LTA prior to it being radiological consequences because the magnitude of the dose.] placed in the spent fuel pool (SFP). distribution of fission products created • At-power accidents involving fuel Duke stated that plutonium isotopes depends on the particular fissile damage to a significant portion of the have a much higher specific activity material. If the fissile material is entire core. These accidents range from than uranium isotopes and, if inhaled, different, it follows that the distribution the locked rotor accident with 11 of fission products may be different. For percent core damage (21 assemblies could present a more severe radiological example, one atom of I–131 is created in damaged), to the rod ejection accident hazard. Although the configuration of 2.86 percent of all U–235 fissions, with 50 percent core damage (97 fuel the MOX pellets and LTA fuel rods whereas one atom of I–131 is created in assemblies damaged), to the large break provides protection against inhalation 3.86 percent of all Pu-239 fissions. This loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with hazards, some plutonium could become shift in fission product distribution was full core damage (all 193 fuel assemblies airborne if the MOX LTA is damaged. assessed for its influence on postulated damaged). In this case, the relative effect Duke performed an analysis to radiological consequences of DBAs. of damaging all four MOX LTA is estimate the radiological consequences Duke’s application provided an reduced as the fuel damage population from a fresh MOX fuel drop accident. accident source term for irradiated MOX increases. For example, in a DBA LOCA, The approach for this analysis was fuel. The NRC staff compared that all 193 fuel assemblies are postulated to consistent with the assumptions and source term to data prepared by Sandia be damaged and the four MOX LTAs methodologies that were used in the National Laboratory and performed constitute just 2 percent of all the fuel calculations supporting the MOX Fuel independent calculations of core assemblies in the core. Fabrication Facility (MFFF) inventory using the ORIGEN–S code (as The NRC staff considered the construction authorization request. The described in NUREG/CR–0200 following additional category to further MOX MFFF application and review did (Reference 28). The NRC staff has assess potential DBA consequences: not address the MOX fuel drop accident determined that source term • Accident source term assumptions and although the guidance of NUREG/ assumptions used by Duke in its derived from RCS radionuclide CR–6410 has not been used previously analyses of the accident consequences concentrations, such as SG tube rupture, for DBA analyses for power reactors, the of the use of the MOX LTAs are main steam line break, instrument line NRC staff concludes that the overall adequate and conservative for assessing break, waste gas decay tank rupture, and methodology used in the MFFF review the consequences of DBAs. liquid storage tank rupture (LST). is appropriate for the present To address the impact of MOX fuel on Estimates of the radionuclide releases application. gap fractions, Duke assumed an increase resulting from these events are based on The dose estimated by the licensee for of 50 percent over that provided in pre-established administrative controls the postulated drop of a single fresh Regulatory Guide 1.183 (Reference 23), that are monitored by periodic MOX fuel assembly was 0.3 rem total for LEU fuel for each of the MOX LTAs. surveillance requirements, for example: effective dose equivalent (TEDE) at the Duke provided information to support RCS and secondary plant-specific EAB, which is a small fraction of the 10 this assumption with comparative data activity LCO, or offsite dose calculation CFR 50.67 dose criterion (i.e., 25 rem from European MOX facilities. The NRC manual effluent controls. Increases in TEDE at the EAB) and is, therefore, staff obtained the assistance of Pacific specific activities due to MOX, if any, found to be acceptable. The NRC staff Northwest National Laboratory to would be limited by these has evaluated the analysis provided by confirm the adequacy of Duke’s administrative controls. Because the the licensee and concludes that the assumed increase in the gap fractions. analyses were based upon the numerical methodology and calculations have Based upon its review, the NRC staff values of these controls, there is no been applied in a conservative manner. determined that the gap fraction impact on the previously analyzed Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that increase assumed by Duke in its DBAs in this category and no further there will be no significant adverse analyses is acceptable. discussion of these events is warranted. environmental impact as a result of a Duke has evaluated the radiological The analysis of public doses for the fresh MOX fuel drop accident. consequences of postulated DBAs Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and Irradiated MOX LTA Drop involving MOX LTAs. Duke has Low-Population Zone (LPZ) resulting categorized various DBAs on the basis of from the two classes of accidents Duke has calculated that the how many fuel assemblies would be considered by Duke are discussed radiological consequences resulting affected by that event. Duke identified below. In addition, the NRC staff has from a FHA involving the drop of a two major categories: evaluated the radiological consequences single irradiated MOX fuel assembly • Fuel-handling accidents (FHA) of affected DBAs on the operators in the would be 2.3 rem TEDE at the EAB, 0.34 involving damage to a few fuel control room. rem TEDE at the edge of the LPZ, and assemblies. These include fresh and 2.1 rem TEDE in the control room— irradiated FHAs (involving the drop of 5.6.1 Fuel-Handling Accidents increases of about 64 percent over the a single fuel assembly) and the weir gate Duke has performed analyses of the previous analysis for LEU fuel. drop (WGD) accident (causing damage dose consequences of FHAs, including: The NRC staff performed confirmatory to seven fuel assemblies). A small the drop of a single fresh fuel assembly; analyses of the spent FHA using the number of assemblies are involved such the drop of a single irradiated MOX fuel MOX LTA source term that it generated that if the four MOX LTAs were in the assembly during refueling; and a weir using the SCALE SAS2H computer code damaged population, they would drop accident, which leads to damage of (as described in NUREG/CR–0200, comprise all or a significant portion of seven irradiated fuel assemblies (Reference 28)). For the irradiated FHA, the damaged population. As such, these including the four MOX fuel assemblies. the source term reflected the decay of

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51122 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

the radionuclides for a 72-hour period Although the consequences of these room dose from the LOCA. Duke after shutdown of the reactor prior to accidents could be determined by determined that the control room moving fuel and, conservatively, was updating the current licensing basis thyroid dose after a postulated LOCA increased (multiplied) by a radial analyses, Duke elected to perform a that could be attributable to the peaking factor of 1.65. The results of the comparative evaluation, which the NRC irradiation of four MOX fuel LTAs NRC staff’s analyses confirmed the staff has independently verified. would increase by 1.32 percent to results obtained by Duke. The doses Duke selected the thyroid dose due to 5.37rem. This is below the dose estimated by the licensee for the I–131 as the evaluation benchmark criterion set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, postulated spent FHA are a small because the thyroid dose is typically Appendix A, Criterion 19, and is not fraction of the 10 CFR 50.67 dose more limiting than the whole body dose considered significant. criterion and are, therefore, acceptable in that there is less margin between Duke determined that the radiological and will not result in a significant calculated thyroid doses and its consequences to workers in the control adverse environmental impact. associated dose criterion. Also, I–131 is room following a postulated WGD accident would result in a calculated Weir Gate Drop generally the most significant contributor to thyroid dose due to its dose to control room operators of 3.3 Duke has calculated the radiological abundance and long decay half-life. rem TEDE. While this is an increase of consequences resulting from a FHA Duke has determined that the I–131 58 percent over the dose previously involving the drop of a weir gate, which inventory in a MOX LTA is 9 percent analyzed for LEU fuel, it remains below is assumed to damage 7 fuel assemblies, greater than that of an equivalent LEU the 5 rem TEDE criterion specified in 10 including all four MOX fuel assemblies. fuel assembly. CFR 50.67. The change in calculated The calculated doses would be 3.5 rem doses to control room operators Loss-of-Coolant Accident TEDE at the EAB, 0.5 rem TEDE at the attributable to the use of the four MOX edge of the LPZ, and 3.3 rem TEDE in For the LOCA, the four MOX LTAs fuel LTAs does not represent a the control room. These dose estimates represent 2.1 percent of the 193 significant environmental impact. represent increases of about 58 percent assemblies in the core and the potential over the previous analysis for LEU fuel, increase in the iodine release and the 5.6.4 Conclusion but are still well below the 10 CFR 50.67 thyroid dose would be 1.32 percent. The The most-limiting DBA (a LOCA) dose criterion. previously-calculated thyroid dose would result in a calculated off-site dose The NRC staff performed confirmatory would increase to 90.2 rem at the EAB at the EAB of 90.2 rem to the thyroid analyses of the weir gate drop accident and to 25.3 rem at the LPZ, which is and 25.3 rem to the thyroid at the edge using the MOX LTA source term that it well below the 300 rem dose criterion of the LPZ. These doses represent generated using the SCALE SAS2H of 10 CFR 100.11. increases of less than 1.32 percent of the computer code. For this accident, the dose previously calculated for LEU fuel source term for the four MOX Locked-Rotor Accident and remain well below the limit of 300 assemblies and the three LEU For the locked-rotor accident, the four rem thyroid specified in 10 CFR 100.11 assemblies reflected the decay of the MOX LTAs represent 19 percent of the for off-site releases. The calculated radionuclides for 19.5 days after 21 assemblies in the core assumed to be change in dose consequences at the EAB shutdown of the reactor prior to moving involved in the postulated accident and and at the LPZ that could be attributable fuel and, conservatively, was increased the potential increase in the iodine to the use of the four MOX fuel LTAs (multiplied) by a radial peaking factor of release and the resulting thyroid dose is not significant. 1.65 (Reference 36). The results of the would be 12 percent. The previously- The NRC staff concludes that the NRC staff’s analyses confirmed the calculated thyroid dose would increase environmental impact resulting from results obtained by Duke. The doses to 4.1 rem at the EAB and to 1.3 rem at incremental increases in EAB, LPZ, and estimated by the licensee for the the LPZ, which is well below the 300 control room dose following postulated postulated accident were below the 5 rem dose criterion of 10 CFR 100.11. DBAs that could occur as a result of the rem TEDE criterion specified in 10 CFR irradiation of four MOX LTAs does not Rod-Ejection Accident 50.67 and are, therefore, acceptable and represent a significant environmental will not have a significant adverse For the rod-ejection accident, the four impact. environmental impact. MOX LTAs represent 4.1 percent of the 97 assemblies in the core assumed to be 5.7 Fuel Cycle Impacts 5.6.2 At-Power Accidents involved in the postulated accident and The source of fissionable material is The current licensing basis analyses the potential increase in the iodine outside of the fuel cycle (coming, as it assume that all fuel assemblies (193) are release and the resulting thyroid dose does, from the pits of dismantled affected by a LOCA. For the locked-rotor would be 2.63 percent. The previously- nuclear warheads that are excess to the accident, 11 percent of the core (21 calculated thyroid dose would increase strategic stockpile). Therefore, the assemblies) is assumed to be affected; to 1.03 rem at the EAB and to 0.1 rem proposed irradiation of four MOX LTAs for the rod-ejection accident, 50 percent at the LPZ, which is well below the 300 at Catawba would preclude use of four of the core (97 assemblies) is assumed rem dose criterion of 10 CFR 100.11. LEU assemblies. This would have only to be affected. For these events, Duke negligible impact on the fuel cycle. assumes that the four MOX LTAs are in 5.6.3 Control Room Dose the affected fuel population displacing Control room dose is the only 5.8 Transportation of Fresh Fuel four LEU assemblies. Because the dose occupational dose that has been The transportation of the unirradiated is directly proportional to the fuel previously considered for DBA MOX fuel assemblies is the assembly inventory and gap fractions, conditions. The at-power accident with responsibility of the DOE and has been the impact on the previously analyzed the most severe consequences for the addressed by the DOE in Supplement accident doses is based on quantifying control room operators is the LOCA; the Analysis 3, regarding the fabrication of the change in fission product release control room doses from postulated MOX fuel LTAs in Europe and their due to replacing up to four LEU fuel locked-rotor or rod-ejection accidents return to the U.S. In Section 5.2 of assemblies with the MOX LTAs. are bounded by the calculated control Supplement Analysis 3, the truck

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51123

transportation risks from U.S. ports to public. For postulated accidents, the were estimated to result in Catawba, the methodology used, and the radiological risk is calculated to be a approximately 12 LCFs to workers, 3 summary results are described. maximum of 2.1 × 10¥7 LCFs, which LCFs to the public, and 5 traffic DOE indicates that LTAs will be one corresponds to transporting the MOX fatalities. shipment using Safe Secure Trailer/ LTAs to Catawba from either the Naval The NRC has assessed the SafeGuards Transports (SST/SGTs); Station Norfolk port or the Yorktown transportation impacts of a campaign of DOE stated that the shipment would be Naval Weapons Station port. The batch MOX fuel use in conjunction with made in SST/SGTs because unirradiated maximum non-radiological risk is an application for the construction and MOX fuel in large enough quantities is calculated to be 1.7 × 10¥4 which also operation of a MOX fuel fabrication subject to security concerns similar to corresponds to shipping from Naval facility (Reference 33); the NRC’s impact those associated with weapons-grade Station Norfolk or Yorktown Naval evaluation from that assessment is used plutonium (Reference 13). The SST/SGT Weapons Station. For both normal and to put the spent MOX LTA is a specially designed component of an accident conditions, no fatalities transportation risks into proper context. 18-wheel tractor-trailer vehicle that has associated with incident free or It should be noted that the NRC has not robust safety and security accidents during transportation are received an application requesting enhancements. expected. widescale or batch use of recycled The risks and consequences plutonium for use in MOX fuel for any associated with exposures to 5.9 Transportation of Spent Fuel commercial reactor, and the NRC has transportation workers and persons Radiological risks during routine not made any determination regarding residing near or sharing transportation transportation would result from the any proposal for such use. In NUREG– links with shipments of radioactive potential exposure of people to low 1767 (Reference 33), the NRC estimated material packages during routine levels of external radiation near a the transportation risks of the spent transport operations or as a result of loaded shipment, either stationary or in MOX fuel based on average shipment accidents were assessed by DOE using transit. Any irradiated MOX fuel rods risks calculated from the DOE results the RADTRAN 5 computer code that are not shipped offsite for post (Reference 14); the estimates show that (Reference 29); see, Chapter 5 of irradiation examination will be stored no fatalities would be expected. Supplement Analysis 3 (Reference 16). on-site until they are shipped to a Shipment of all of the spent MOX fuel For incident-free transportation risk, permanent high-level waste repository. generated under a batch use scenario DOE used the RADTRAN 5 code to A shipping container must have a would result in approximately 598 calculate the dose and corresponding certificate of compliance (COC) issued shipments (Reference 33). Further, risk based on the external dose rate from by the NRC. As specified in 10 CFR Part assuming three assemblies per cask, the the shipping vehicle, the transportation 71 Subpart D, the applicant for a COC campaign might be expected to result in route and population density along the must submit a Safety Analysis Report approximately 0.1 worker LCFs, 0.03 route. For accident transportation risk, (SAR) which the NRC staff then reviews public LCFs, and 0.05 transportation DOE used the State-specific accident against a number of standards. After fatalities. Under this proposed action, rates between the marine ports and review, the NRC staff issues a safety only four MOX LTAs are contemplated. Catawba, and a conditional accident evaluation report (SER) describing the Even if the number of shipments were frequency-severity relationship that basis of approval. minimized to ship the highest considered the route conditions. DOE The only disposal site currently under concentration of MOX spent fuel, i.e., all used the accident rate for SST/SGT consideration in the U.S. is the four assemblies in two casks, and, using transport and the accident severity proposed geologic repository in Nevada the results of the aforementioned category classifications of NRC’s (Reference 14). For purposes of assessment, the MOX LTAs might be NUREG–0170 (Reference 17). DOE also complying with NEPA requirements, it expected to result in a small fraction calculated the non-radiological accident is assumed that spent MOX LTAs would (i.e., 2 ÷ 598) of the quantified risk risks. eventually be shipped to the proposed estimates, above, and not discernible The radiological risk of transporting repository in Nevada. However, the from earlier NRC analyses involving the four fresh MOX LTAs is an estimate DOE’s application for a license to solely LEU spent fuel. of the number of latent cancer fatalities operate the repository has not yet been DOE proposes to take possession of a (LCFs) and is small for both the public submitted to the NRC. There is no small portion of the irradiated fuel (i.e., and the driver. Table 2 (Page 17 of assurance that the DOE’s application, if spent fuel) from Catawba and to conduct Supplement Analysis 3) indicates that submitted, would be approved, but it is post-irradiation examination and testing for incident-free transportation of the reasonable to use the Nevada repository at one of its national laboratories. DOE fresh MOX LTAs, the radiological risk to as a surrogate for this assessment. described these activities in the SPD EIS the crew which corresponds to shipping On a per-kilometer-traveled basis, the (Reference 13). The transportation risks from the Naval Station Norfolk port in NRC reported that the routine for this limited amount of spent MOX Virginia, is a maximum of 4.0 × 10¥6 radiological and vehicle-related fuel that would be shipped to ORNL in LCFs. DOE indicates that the maximum transportation risks for spent MOX fuel Tennessee from Catawba is considered radiological risk to the public for would be similar to those estimated for to be bounded by the risk estimates from incident-free transportation is 3.2 × fresh MOX fuel, plutonium metal, or the spent MOX LTAs. Apart from the 10¥6 LCFs, associated with shipping transuranic radioactive waste (Reference smaller quantities involved for the post- from Naval Station Norfolk or Yorktown 33). The transportation risks of LEU irradiation examination and testing, the Naval Weapons Station. For accidents, spent nuclear fuel and spent MOX fuel total number of kilometers traveled from in Table 2 DOE provides an estimate of transport, in particular, were estimated Catawba to ORNL is less than that from the radiological risk in terms of LCFs. in the DOE final EIS concerning Catawba to any contemplated Non-radiological risks are stated as disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high- repository. expected number of accident fatalities level waste in Nevada (Reference 14). In light of the above, no significant from non-radiological factors. The DOE reported that under the mostly impacts would be expected from the accident risk analysis does not legal-weight truck scenario, shipment of either the spent MOX LTAs distinguish between the crew and the approximately 53,000 truck shipments to a repository or the shipment of a

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51124 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

small portion of the spent MOX LTAs to which is a full scope Level 3 PRA. In (Reference 25), which means the IPE ORNL. Furthermore, the estimated risks this case, the Catawba PRA included the was of adequate quality to be used to are only a very small fraction of the analysis of internal as well as external look for design or operational radiological annual transport risks events. The internal events analysis was vulnerabilities. The NRC staff’s review estimated in NUREG–0170, the NRC’s an updated version of the Individual primarily focused on the licensee’s Final EIS on the transportation of Plant Examination (IPE) model ability to examine Catawba for severe radioactive material (Reference 17). The (Reference 1), and the external events accident vulnerabilities and not NRC has determined that the impact analysis was based on the Individual specifically on the detailed findings or from normal transportation and Plant Examination for External Events quantification estimates. Overall, the accidents is small. (IPEEE) model (Reference 2). The NRC staff concluded that the Catawba calculated total core damage frequency IPE was of adequate quality to be used 5.10 Severe Accidents (CDF) for internal and external events in as a tool in searching for areas with high Environmental issues associated with Revision 2b of the Catawba PRA is 5.8 potential for risk reduction and to assess postulated severe accidents are × 10¥5 per year. Internal event initiators such risk reductions, especially when discussed in the Final Environmental represent about 80 percent of the total the risk models are used in conjunction Impact Statement for Catawba, NUREG– CDF and were composed of transients with insights, such as those from risk 0921 (Reference 18), the Generic (24 percent of total CDF), loss of coolant importance, sensitivity, and uncertainty Environmental Impact Statement for accidents (29 percent of total CDF), analyses. License Renewal of Nuclear Plants internal flood (24 percent of total CDF), The NRC staff’s review of the Catawba (GEIS), NUREG–1437, Volumes 1 and 2 and reactor pressure vessel rupture (2 IPEEE was described in a SER dated (Reference 24) and in Supplement 9 to percent of total CDF). Remaining April 12, 1999 (Reference 27). Duke did NUREG–37, the site-specific contributors together accounted for less not identify any fundamental supplement. Severe nuclear accidents than 3 percent of total CDF. External weaknesses or vulnerabilities to severe are those accidents that are more severe event initiators represented about 20 accident risk with regard to the external than DBAs because they could result in percent of the total CDF and are events. In the SER, the NRC staff substantial damage to the reactor core, composed of seismic initiators (15 concluded that the IPEEE met the intent whether or not there are serious off-site percent of total CDF), tornado initiators of Supplement 4 to GL 88–20 (Reference consequences. In the environmental (4 percent of total CDF), and fire 21), and that the licensee’s IPEEE reviews identified above, the NRC staff initiators (2 percent of the total CDF). process was capable of identifying the assessed the impacts of severe Duke estimated the dose to the most likely severe accidents and severe accidents, using the results of existing population within 80 km (50 mi) of the accident vulnerabilities. analyses and site-specific information to Catawba site from all initiators (internal The NRC staff reviewed the process conservatively predict the and external) to be 0.314 person-sieverts used by Duke to extend the containment environmental impacts of severe (Sv) (31.4 person-rem) per year performance (Level 2) portion of the IPE accidents for Catawba. (Reference 3); internal events account to the off-site consequence (Level 3) Severe accidents initiated by external for approximately 0.21 person-Sv (21 assessment. This included consideration phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, person-rem). Early and late containment of the source terms used to characterize earthquakes, and fires have not failures accounted for the majority of fission product releases for each traditionally been discussed in the population dose. containment release category and the quantitative terms in FESs and were not In its most recent review of severe major input assumptions used in the off- specifically considered for the Catawba accidents for the purpose of determining site consequence analyses. The NRC site in the GEIS (Reference 24). whether mitigation alternatives were staff reviewed Duke’s source term However, in the GEIS, the NRC staff did warranted, the NRC staff considered the estimates for the major release evaluate existing impact assessments following major elements: categories and found these predictions performed by NRC and by the industry • The Level 1 and 2 risk models that to be in reasonable agreement with at 44 nuclear plants in the U.S. and form the basis for the September 1992 estimates of NUREG–1150 (Reference concluded that the risk from beyond IPE submittal (Reference 1); 20) for the closest corresponding release design-basis earthquakes at existing • The major modifications to the IPE scenarios. In Supplement 9, the NRC nuclear power plants, including models that have been incorporated in staff concluded that the assignment of Catawba, was small. [The NRC’s Revision 2b of the PRA (Reference 4); source terms was acceptable. The standard for significance was • The external events models that differences in the source terms for a established using the Council on form the basis for the June 1994 IPEEE severe accident involving substantial Environmental Quality’s terminology for submittal (Reference 2); and damage to the core solely with LEU fuel ‘‘significantly’’ (40 CFR 1508.27, which • The analyses performed to translate assemblies or substituting four LEU requires consideration of both ‘‘context’’ fission product release frequencies from assemblies with MOX LTAs are and ‘‘intensity’’). ‘‘Small’’ in this the Level 2 PRA model into offsite indistinguishable, given the uncertainty, context means ‘‘environmental effects consequence measures (Reference 3). and would result in no appreciable are not detectable or are so minor that The NRC staff’s review of the Catawba change in the risk estimates. they will neither destabilize nor IPE was described in an NRC safety The plant-specific evaluation noticeably alter any important attribute evaluation dated June 7, 1994 included the Catawba reactor core of the resource.’’] The NRC staff did (Reference 22). In that review, the NRC radionuclide inventory, emergency conclude in the GEIS that the risks from staff evaluated the methodology, response evacuation modeling based on other external events were adequately models, data, and assumptions used to Catawba evacuation time estimate addressed by a generic consideration of estimate the CDF and characterize studies, release category source terms internally initiated severe accidents. containment performance and fission from the Catawba PRA, Revision 2b, As part of its ongoing licensing product releases. The NRC staff analysis (same as the source terms used reviews, the NRC staff also reviewed concluded that Duke’s analysis met the in the IPE), site-specific meteorological Revision 2b of the Catawba Probabilistic intent of Generic Letter (GL) 88–20 data for a representative year, and Risk Assessment (PRA) (Reference 4), (Reference 19) and NUREG–1560 projected population distribution within

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51125

a 80 km (50 mi) radius (Reference 4). decommissioning of power reactors. consequences of accidents, would not The NRC staff confirmed that Duke used Supplement 1 to the GEIS for introduce any new radiological release appropriate values for the consequence decommissioning comprehensively pathways, would not result in a analysis and reported the results of its evaluated all environmental impacts significant increase in occupational or risk evaluation for Catawba in related to the radiological public radiation exposure, and would Supplement 9. The NRC staff concluded decommissioning of nuclear power not result in significant additional fuel that the methodology used by Duke to facilities. By rule, if a licensee cycle environmental impacts. estimate the CDF and offsite anticipates the need to perform Accordingly, the Commission concludes consequences for Catawba was activities that have not been previously that there are no significant adequate. considered or activities with impacts environmental radiological impacts In the license renewal GEIS greater than those considered in the associated with the proposed action. (Reference 24), the NRC staff concluded decommissioning GEIS, then it must that the probability-weighted obtain NRC approval with a license 6.0 Irreversible or Irretrievable consequences from atmospheric releases amendment request. At this time, Duke Commitment of Resources associated with severe accidents was has not identified and the NRC staff is The NRC staff has considered the judged to be of small significance for all unaware of any activities that are commitment of resources related to plants, including Catawba. The NRC dissimilar from those assessed in operation of Catawba. These resources staff concluded that, for both the NUREG–0586 that might occur as a include materials and equipment drinking water and aquatic food result of the LTA campaign. Therefore, required for plant maintenance and pathways, the probability-weighted the NRC staff has determined that the operation, the nuclear fuel used by the consequences from fallout due to severe impacts associated with the reactors, and ultimately, permanent accidents is of small significance for all decommissioning of a facility that offsite storage space for the spent fuel plants, including Catawba. The NRC would irradiate four MOX LTAs would assemblies. As described in Supplement staff concluded that the probability- be bounded by the impacts predicted by 9, the most significant resource weighted consequences from Supplement 1 to NUREG–0586 commitments related to operation of the groundwater releases associated with (Reference 31). Catawba facility are the fuel and the severe accidents was judged to be of Decommissioning impacts are permanent storage space. The resource small significance for all plants, primarily related to the activities commitments to be considered in this including Catawba. associated with the decontamination assessment are associated with the Nothing about the proposed action and dismantlement of the structures, proposed irradiation of four MOX fuel would significantly change either the systems, and components of the facility. LTAs in the reactor core of one of the probability or consequences of severe The use of the MOX fuel LTAs will not Catawba facilities. Aside from the accidents. The small percentage of non- change the scope or impact of those plutonium in the MOX fuel (20.2 kg Pu LEU fuel assemblies that could be activities. During decommissioning, the per assembly), all of the materials that involved in a severe accident would not primary system is typically are to be used would be used if the result in an appreciable change in the decontaminated using a chemical flush. action were not to proceed. risk estimates. The proposed action is Contamination in the primary system is not expected to change the manner in removed by the chemical flush and 7.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts which the facility is operated nor does deposited in ion exchange resins that The NRC staff has considered whether it alter Catawba’s risk profile for severe are permanently disposed in licensed the proposed action would cause accidents analyzed in the GEIS for burial facilities. Decommissioning of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts license renewal (Reference 24) and, facility would not result in the and concludes that the proposed more recently, its assessment of generation of any significant increase in irradiation of four MOX fuel LTAs will mitigation alternatives in Supplement 9. liquid or solid radioactive waste. No have no environmental non-radiological Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that increases in offsite or occupational impacts and only minor radiological the environmental impacts of the exposure would be expected. No impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed use of MOX LTAs are significant quantities of contaminated or concludes that there will be no bounded by the environmental impacts activated additional structural material significant adverse impacts as a result of previously evaluated in the GEIS and would be generated during the proposed action. Supplement 9. decommissioning because of the use of 8.0 Mitigation 5.11 Decommissioning the lead assemblies. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes The NRC staff has evaluated the Once a nuclear power generating that the decommissioning of the facility impacts that would accrue from the facility permanently ceases commercial after use of the lead assemblies would proposed action. The NRC staff has operation, the licensee is required to not result in impacts that are concluded that there will be no begin decommissioning. significantly different from a facility environmental non-radiological impacts Decommissioning is the process of undergoing decommissioning that did and only minor radiological impacts. removing a facility or site safely from not use the lead assemblies. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that service and reducing residual Furthermore, the impacts of mitigation is not warranted or necessary radioactivity to a level that permits decommissioning the Catawba facility to minimize the impacts of this action. either the release of the property for after the irradiation of four MOX fuel 9.0 Cumulative Impacts unrestricted use and termination of the LTAs are bounded by the impacts license or release of the property under evaluated in NUREG–0586, Supplement The NRC staff considered potential restricted conditions and termination of 1 (Reference 31). cumulative impacts during its the license. In November 2002, the NRC evaluation of the proposed action. For staff issued Final Supplement 1 to 5.12 Summary the purposes of this analysis, past NUREG–0586, entitled ‘‘Generic EIS on The proposed irradiation of four MOX actions were those related to the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,’’ fuel LTAs at Catawba would not resources at the site at the time of the (Reference 31) regarding the significantly increase the probability or plant licensing and construction;

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51126 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

present actions are those related to the lead assembly use at McGuire as in each core. Oconee uses a fixed incore resources at the site at the time of compared to MOX fuel lead assembly detector system with rhodium detectors current operations of the power plant; use at Catawba. The ER on MOX fuel to measure neutron flux; McGuire and and future actions are considered to be lead assembly use submitted to the NRC Catawba use a movable incore detector those that are reasonably foreseeable in support of the license amendment system with fission chambers. Oconee is through the end of plant operation. The request (Reference 5), is applicable to a Babcock and Wilcox-designed reactor; impacts of the proposed action are both plants. Duke’s responses to NRC McGuire and Catawba are four-loop combined with other past, present, and requests for additional information Westinghouse plants. The core thermal reasonably foreseeable future actions at (Reference 7 and Reference 9) related to power level is 2568 MW(t) at Oconee, Catawba regardless of what agency environmental consequences would be vs. 3411 MW(t) at McGuire and (Federal or non-Federal) or person technically applicable to irradiation of Catawba. RCS average temperature is undertakes such other actions. These the MOX LTAs at McGuire as well as at 579 °F at Oconee, vs. 586 °F at McGuire combined impacts are defined as Catawba. and Catawba. ‘‘cumulative’’ in 40 CFR 1508.7 and In a letter dated September 23, 2003, Duke considers that a lead assembly include individually minor, but Duke amended its license amendment program with the prototypical fuel collectively significant, actions taking request to apply to Catawba only design under prototypical conditions is place over a period of time. The NRC (Reference 6). This action was based on required prior to contemplating use of staff concludes that the proposed action refueling schedule considerations and significant quantities of MOX fuel at would add only minute, incremental the desire to minimize the resource McGuire or Catawba. The differences effects to those already accruing from requirements associated with MOX fuel between McGuire/Catawba and Oconee, current operation at Catawba using LEU lead assembly licensing. While use of while not extreme, are great enough fuel. MOX fuel lead assemblies at McGuire such that MOX fuel lead assembly use remains technically feasible, these at Oconee would not be considered 10.0 Alternatives to the Proposed refueling schedule and resource prototypical (Reference 10). For those Action considerations make Catawba preferable same reasons, Duke considers it likely The NRC staff has evaluated a number for use of the MOX fuel lead assemblies that NRC would not consider a MOX of reasonable alternatives to the in the late spring of 2005. That date, in fuel lead assembly program at Oconee to proposed action, including the no- turn, is driven by lead assembly be sufficient for NRC to authorize Duke action alternative. Two of the fabrication and transportation to use significant quantities of MOX fuel alternatives involve use of the reactors (Reference 10). at McGuire or Catawba. Therefore, Oconee is not a practical alternative for at two other Duke facilities, McGuire 10.3 Use of Oconee Nuclear Station, a MOX fuel lead assembly program. and Oconee Nuclear Station. A fourth Units 1, 2, and 3 as an Alternative alternative involves a different scheme Duke has stated that it knows of no than is currently proposed for MOX fuel lead assembly irradiation at technical reason that MOX fuel could transporting all of the rods from the Oconee is not considered to be a not be used safely at Oconee (Reference irradiated MOX fuel LTAs offsite for technically feasible alternative to using 10). However, in the context of the post-irradiation examination (PIE) at MOX fuel lead assemblies at a Catawba ongoing U.S. program to dispose of ORNL. unit. As described in Duke’s license surplus plutonium using MOX fuel, amendment request, the reason for the McGuire and Catawba are the only 10.1 No-Action Alternative lead assembly program is to reactors selected for the program and The NRC staff has considered the no- demonstrate the acceptable performance the only technically feasible alternatives action alternative. If the four MOX fuel of MOX fuel derived from weapons under Duke’s control for a MOX fuel LTAs are not irradiated in one of the grade plutonium in reactors. McGuire lead assembly program. Catawba reactors, four LEU fuel and Catawba are very similar in design 10.4 Offsite Storage of All MOX LTA assemblies with comparable to European reactors that have amassed Fuel Rods performance characteristics will be decades of experience using reactor used. The impacts resulting from the grade MOX fuel. Further, McGuire and As part of the MOX Fuel Project lead proposed action and the no-action Catawba are the facilities that have been assembly program, a small number of alternative are similar. proposed to and accepted by the DOE irradiated MOX fuel rods will, at the for the larger-scale irradiation of the direction of DOE, be transported to 10.2 Use of the McGuire Nuclear MOX fuel. It should be noted that the ORNL for post-irradiation examination Station, Units 1 and 2 as an Alternative NRC has not received an application for (PIE). The fuel rods would be MOX fuel lead assembly irradiation at wide scale routine, or batch, use of destructively examined at ORNL and a McGuire unit is a technically feasible MOX fuel in any reactor and the NRC eventually disposed of as waste. The alternative to using MOX LTA fuel at has not made any determination remainder of the MOX fuel rods Catawba. McGuire and Catawba share regarding any proposal for wide scale (approximately 1000 rods) would the same fuel assembly design, and the routine, or batch, use. remain in the SFP at Catawba until they RCS operating parameters are similar McGuire and Catawba share the same are accepted by DOE pursuant to the among all four units. All of the reactors fuel assembly design. By contrast, Nuclear Waste Policy Act, presumably are base loaded, with approximately 18 Oconee has a different fuel assembly to a permanent geologic repository. month intervals between refueling. All design and a different RCS design than Transportation of irradiated MOX fuel four reactors have the same rated the McGuire and Catawba plants. to an interim offsite location is beyond thermal power—3411 MW(t) nominal. Oconee fuel assemblies have a 15x15 the scope of the Duke lead assembly In addition, transportation modes and lattice; McGuire and Catawba use 17x17 license amendment application means of delivery to the two plants are fuel. The fuel rod pitch is 0.568 inches (Reference 10). Duke’s application is the same. at Oconee, versus 0.496 inches at specifically limited to the receipt and Due to these and other similarities, McGuire and Catawba. Oconee has 177 storage of MOX fuel as well as incore there is a de minimis difference in the fuel assemblies in each core; McGuire irradiation of the MOX fuel. The environmental impacts of MOX fuel and Catawba have 193 fuel assemblies environmental impacts of irradiated

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices 51127

MOX fuel transportation and disposal Submittal, Catawba Nuclear Station, June 21, 19. NRC Generic Letter 88–20, Individual have been addressed in other EISs. 1994. Plant Examination for Severe Accident There are no specific plans in place to 3. Duke letter to NRC, Applicant’s Vulnerabilities, November 23, 1988. Environmental Report—Operating License 20. NRC NUREG–1150, Severe Accident transport offsite all of the MOX fuel rods Risks—An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear from the MOX fuel lead assemblies in Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, June 12, 2001, ADAMS Power Plants, December 1990. conjunction with the offsite shipment of ML011660138. 21. NRC Supplement 4 to Generic Letter a limited number of rods to ORNL for 4. Duke, Probabilistic Risk Assessment 88–20, Individual Plant Examination of PIE. Revision 2b, Catawba Nuclear Station, April External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Nevertheless, the NRC staff requested 18, 2001. Vulnerabilities,’’ June 28, 1991. that Duke consider an alternative 5. Duke letter to NRC, Proposed 22. NRC Letter to Duke, Safety Evaluation involving a variation of the proposed Amendments to the Facility Operating of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant Examination (IPE) DOE transportation of the irradiated License and Technical Specifications to Allow Insertion of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Submittal, June 7, 1994. MOX fuel rods in the LTAs (Reference 23. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, Lead Assemblies and Request for Exemption 35). Duke could ship all of the MOX fuel ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms for from Certain Regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, assemblies to ORNL for storage even Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear February 27, 2003, ADAMS ML030760734. Power Reactors.’’ though there are no facilities for such 6. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba and storage at ORNL (Reference 10). 24. NRC NUREG–1437, Volumes 1 and 2, McGuire, Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assembly Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Nevertheless, in this hypothetical case, License Amendment Request, September 23, following interim storage, ORNL could License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, May 2003, ADAMS ML032750033. 1996. ship the four MOX fuel assemblies to 7. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba, Response 25. NRC NUREG–1560, Individual Plant another storage location. The difference to Request for Additional Information Examination Program: Perspectives on in these approaches is minor from an Regarding the Use of Mixed Oxide Lead Fuel Reactor Safety and Plant Performance, environmental perspective. The Assemblies, November 3, 2003, ADAMS December 1997. alternative approach would eliminate ML033210369. 26. NRC NUREG–1437, Vol. 1, Addendum the need for the direct shipment of four 8. Duke letter to NRC, Response to Request 1, Final Report—Generic Environmental for Additional Information dated November fuel assemblies from Catawba to Yucca Impact Statement—License Renewal of 30, 2003, Regarding the Use of Mixed Oxide Nuclear Plants—Main Report—Section 6.3— Mountain, should Yucca Mountain Lead Fuel Assemblies, December 10, 2003, Transportation Table 9.1, Summary of eventually be licensed, however, ADAMS ML033510563. Findings on NEPA issues for license renewal offsetting this benefit is the shipment 9. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba, Response of nuclear power plants, August 1999. from Catawba to ORNL and from ORNL to Request for Additional Information, Mixed 27. NRC Letter Duke, Catawba—Review of to Yucca Mountain and additional Oxide Fuel Assemblies (Environmental, Individual Plant Examination of External handling. Duke has stated that it expects Radiological, and Materials), February 2, Events (IPEEE), April 12, 1999. that the difference between the 2004, ADAMS ML040510064. 28. NRC NUREG/CR–0200, Revision 6, alternatives would be negligible 10. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba, Response Volume 1, SAS2H: A Coupled One- to Request for Additional Information Mixed Dimensional Depletion and Shielding (Reference 10). Analysis Module, March 2000. It should be noted that it is necessary Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies (Environmental), March 1, 2004, ADAMS 29. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND to cool spent fuel assemblies in the SFP ML040710492. 2000–1256, RADTRAN 5 Technical Manual, prior to shipping them offsite. 11. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba, Amended May 2000. Therefore, the alternative of shipping all Information Regarding Radiological 30. NRC NUREG–1714, Vol. 1, Final of the fuel offsite would by necessity Consequences for MOX Fuel Lead Environmental Impact Statement for the involve some period of onsite storage at Assemblies, March 16, 2004, ADAMS Construction and Operation of an Catawba. There is no conceivable ML040840483. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band alternative (other than no-action) that 12. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE/ EIS–0229, Storage and Disposition of of Goshute Indians and the Related involves no spent MOX fuel assembly Transportation Facility in Toole County, Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final storage at Catawba (Reference 10). Utah, December 2001. Programmatic Environmental Impact If DOE were to transport all of the 31. NRC NUREG–0586, Generic Statement, December 1996. rods in the four MOX LTAs offsite, no Environmental Impact Statement on 13. DOE/EIS–0283, Surplus Plutonium Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, irradiated MOX fuel would need to be Disposition Environmental Impact Statement, stored on the Catawba site. The NRC November 2002. 1 through 5, November 1999. 32. NRC NUREG–1437, Supplement 9 staff concludes that the environmental 14. DOE/EIS–0250, Final Environmental impacts from this alternative would be (Catawba) to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository Impact Statement for License Renewal of similar to those for the proposed action. for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Plants, December 2002. High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 11.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted 33. NRC NUREG–1767, Draft Report for Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, February Comment—Environmental Impact Statement On July 30, 2004, the NRC staff 2002. on the Construction and Operation of a consulted with the South Carolina State 15. DOE/EIS–0283–SA1, Supplemental Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the official, Mr. Mike Gandy of the Analysis and Amended Record of Decision— Savannah River Site, South Carolina, Department of Health and Changes Needed to the Surplus Plutonium February 2003. Environmental Controls, regarding the Disposition Program, April 2003. 34. NRC Letter to Duke, Catawba—Request 16. DOE/EIS–0229–SA3, Supplemental environmental impact of the proposed for Additional information Regarding Mixed Analysis—Fabrication of Mixed Oxide Fuel Oxide Lead Fuel Assemblies, December 16, action. The State official had no Lead Assemblies in Europe, November 2003. 2003, ADAMS ML033500408. comments. 17. NRC NUREG–0170, Final 35. NRC Letter to Duke, Catawba—Request 12.0 References Environmental Impact Statement on the for Additional Information Regarding Mixed Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air Oxide Lead Fuel Assemblies, February 20, 1. Duke letter to NRC, Catawba Individual and Other Means, December 1977. 2004, ADAMS ML040490683. Plant Examination (IPE) Submittal, 18. NRC NUREG–0921, Final 36. NRC Letter to Duke, transmitting safety September 10, 1992. Environmental Impact Statement Related to evaluation for proposed amendments to the 2. Duke letter to NRC, Individual Plant the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station, operating license, April 5, 2004, ADAMS Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Units 1 and 2, January 1983. ML040970046.

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 51128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices

13.0 Finding of No Significant Impact Commission on Radiation Protection and public doses over the past decade. On the basis of the EA, the NRC (ICRP) on September 15, 2004, in The ICRP now proposes to strengthen its concludes that the proposed action will Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of recommendations by quantifying not have a significant effect on the ISCORS is to foster early resolution and constraints for all controllable sources quality of the human environment. coordination of regulatory issues in all situations. Further, the system of Accordingly, the NRC has determined associated with radiation standards. protection now recommended by the not to prepare an EIS for the proposed Agencies represented as members of ICRP is intended to be seen as a natural action. ISCORS include the following: NRC; evolution of, and as a further For further details with respect to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; clarification of, their 1990 proposed action, see the licensee’s letter U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Recommendations. Specifically, the dated February 27, 2003, as Department of Defense; U.S. Department draft report addresses the following supplemented by letters dated of Transportation; the Occupational areas: quantities used in radiation September 15, September 23, October 1 Safety and Health Administration of the protection; biological aspects; the (two letters), October 3 (two letters), U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. general attributes of the system of November 3 and 4, December 10, 2003, Department of Homeland Security; and protection; levels of protection for and February 2 (two letters), March 1 the U.S. Department of Health and individuals; optimization of protection; (three letters), March 9 (two letters), Human Services. ISCORS meeting exclusion of sources; medical March 16 (two letters), March 26, March observer agencies include the Office of exposures; potential exposure; and 31, April 13, April 16, May 13, and June Science and Technology Policy, Office protection of the environment. of Management and Budget, Defense 17, 2004. Documents may be examined, DATES: The meeting will be held from 1 and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as representatives from both the States p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Public Document Room (PDR), located September 15, 2004. at One White Flint North, Public File of Illinois and Pennsylvania. Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first The ICRP representatives, Dr. Roger ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly Clarke, Chairman, and Dr. Lars-Erik the ACRS hearing room, T2B3, at Two available records will be accessible Holm, Vice-Chairman, will be White Flint North, 11545 Rockville electronically from the Agencywide presenting the draft revision of the ICRP Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Documents Access and Management recommendations on radiation protection, currently available for public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Susanne Woods or Jennifer Davis, Office Reading Room on the Internet at the consultation at http://www.icrp.org. The objective of the meeting is to provide an of Nuclear Material Safety and NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who opportunity for exchange of ideas and comments with the ICRP during the Commission, Washington, DC 20555, do not have access to ADAMS or who telephone (301) 415–7319; FAX (301) encounter problems in accessing the time the draft recommendations are available for public consultation. The 415–5398; electronic mail to both documents located in ADAMS, should [email protected] and [email protected]. contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by tentative agenda includes an ICRP telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301– presentation followed by open, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Visitor 415–4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. moderated discussion of the draft parking around the NRC building is recommendations with attendees. There limited; however, the Two White Flint Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day will be time on the agenda for members North building is located adjacent to the of August 2004. of the public to ask questions. The final For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. White Flint Metro Station on the Red agenda for the September 2004 meeting Line. Edwin M. Hackett, will be posted on the ISCORS Web site, Project Director, Project Directorate II, http://www.iscors.org, shortly before the Dated at Rockville, MD, this 11th day of August, 2004. Division of Licensing Project Management, meeting. Space is limited and advanced Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. registration is requested to assure For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [FR Doc. 04–18731 Filed 8–16–04; 8:45 am] attendance upon arrival. Attendees Scott Flanders, BILLING CODE 7590–01–P should plan to provide two forms of Deputy Director, Environmental and identification and arrive early in Performance Assessment Directorate, anticipation of security screening and Division of Waste Management and NUCLEAR REGULATORY related delays. Environmental Performance, Office of COMMISSION In the executive summary of the draft Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. report, ICRP concluded that its [FR Doc. 04–18733 Filed 8–16–04; 8:45 am] Notice of Public Meeting of the recommendations should be based on a BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Interagency Steering Committee on simple, but widely applicable, general Radiation Standards With the system of protection that will clarify its International Commission on Radiation objectives and will provide a basis for NUCLEAR REGULATORY Protection the more formal systems needed by COMMISSION operating managements and regulators. AGENCIES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sunshine Act Meeting Commission and U.S. Environmental The report specifies that ICRP also Protection Agency. recognizes the need for stability in DATE: Weeks of August 16, 23, 30, ACTION: Notice of public meeting. regulatory systems at a time when there is no major problem identified with the September 6, 13, 20, 2004. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory practical use of the present system of PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Commission (NRC) will host a topical protection in normal situations. The use Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, public meeting of the Interagency of the optimization principle, together Maryland. Steering Committee on Radiation with the use of constraints and the STATUS: Standards (ISCORS) with current dose limits, has led to a general Public and Closed. representatives from the International overall reduction in both occupational MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

VerDate jul<14>2003 13:06 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1