52356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 

Accession Number: ML102100236). 

This draft NUREG–1482, Revision 2, 

incorporates all the public comments 

received for draft NUREG–1946, because 

based on public comments, NUREG– 

1482, Revision 1, is revised and updated 

instead of issuing the new NUREG– 

1946. The NRC staff evaluation and 

resolution of public comments for draft 

NUREG–1946, including Inservice 

Testing Owner Group comments, are 

documented in ADAMS Accession 

Number: ML112092872. Most of the 

draft NUREG–1946 included in the 

main text of draft NUREG–1482, 

Revision 2, Appendix A, to this 

NUREG–1482, Revision 2, contains 

guidance provided in Revision 1 to 

NUREG–1482 for pumps and valves that 

has been updated for the development 

of inservice testing programs at nuclear 

power plants. Appendix B to this 

NUREG contains guidance related to 

inservice examination and testing of 

dynamic restraints (snubbers), which is 

included for the first time in the draft 

NUREG–1482, Revision 2. 

The guidelines and recommendations 

provided in this NUREG and its 

Appendices A and B do not supersede 

the regulatory requirements specified in 

10 CFR 50.55a. Further, this NUREG 

does not authorize the use of 

alternatives to, or grant relief from, the 

ASME Code requirements for inservice 

testing of pumps and valves, or 

inservice examination and testing of 

dynamic restraints (snubbers), 

incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 

50.55a. In addition, the NUREG 

discusses other inservice test program 

topics such as the NRC process for 

review of the OM Code, conditions on 

the use of the OM Code, and 

interpretations of the OM Code. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of August 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anthony C. McMurtray, 

Chief, Component Performance and Testing 

Branch, Division of Component Integrity, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21357 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0188; Docket No. 50–315] 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is considering issuance of an exemption 

and an amendment to Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–58 issued to 

Indiana Michigan Power Company (the 

licensee), for operation of Donald C. 

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (DCCNP–1), 

located in Berrien County, Michigan, in 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, 

§ 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR 

51.21, the NRC performed an 

environmental assessment documenting 

its findings. The NRC concluded that 

the proposed actions would have no 

significant environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Actions 

The proposed actions would issue an 

exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 regarding 

fuel cladding material, and revise the 

Technical Specifications document, 

which is part of the Renewed Facility 

Operating Licenses, to permit use of 

Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel to a peak road 

average burnup limit of 62 gigawattdays per metric ton uranium (GWD/ 

MTU). 

The proposed actions are in 

accordance with the licensee’s 

application dated December 16, 2010. 

The Need for the Proposed Actions 

The proposed actions to issue an 

exemption to the fuel cladding 

requirement of 10 CFR 50.46, and to 

amend the Technical Specifications to 

permit use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel 

to a peak rod average burnup limit of 62 

GWD/MTU would allow for more 

effective fuel management. If the 

exemption and amendment are not 

approved, the licensee will not be 

provided the opportunity to use 

Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel design with a 

peak rod average burnup as high as 62 

GWD/MTU; the licensee would thus 

lose fuel management flexibility. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Actions 

In this environmental assessment 

regarding the impacts of the use of 

Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel with the 

possible burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, 

the Commission is relying on the results 

of the updated study conducted for the 

NRC by the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL), entitled 

‘‘Environmental Effects of Extending 

Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU’’ 

(NUREG/CR–6703, PNNL–13257, 

January 2001). Environmental impacts 

of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/MTU 

were evaluated in the study, but some 

aspects of the review were limited to 

evaluating the impacts of the extended 

burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, because of 

the need for additional data on the effect 

of extended burnup on gap release 

fractions. All the aspects of the fuelcycle were considered during the study, 

from mining, milling, conversion, 

enrichment and fabrication through 

normal reactor operation, 

transportation, waste management, and 

storage of spent fuel. 

The amendment and exemption 

would allow DCCNP–1 to use 

Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel up to a burnup 

limit of 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff 

has completed its evaluation of the 

proposed actions and concludes that 

such changes would not adversely affect 

plant safety, and would have no adverse 

effect on the probability of any accident. 

For the accidents that involve damage or 

melting of the fuel in the reactor core, 

fuel rod integrity has been shown to be 

unaffected by extended burnup under 

consideration; therefore, the probability 

of an accident will not be affected by 

fuel burnup to 62 GWD/MTU. For the 

accidents in which the reactor core 

remains intact, the increased burnup 

may slightly change the mix of fission 

products that could be released in the 

event of a serious accident, but because 

the radionuclides contributing most to 

the dose are short-lived, increased 

burnup would not have an effect on the 

consequences of a serious accident 

beyond the consequences of previously 

evaluated accident scenarios. Thus, 

there will be no significant increase in 

projected dose consequences of 

postulated accidents associated with 

fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, and 

doses will remain well below regulatory 

limits. 

Regulatory limits on radiological 

effluent releases are independent of 

burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 

part 20, 10 CFR 50.36a, and Appendix 

I to 10 CFR part 50 ensure that routine 

releases of gaseous, liquid or solid 

radiological effluents to unrestricted 

areas is kept ‘‘As Low As is Reasonably 

Achievable.’’ Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that during routine 

operations, there would be no 

significant increase in the amount of 

gaseous radiological effluents released 

into the environment as a result of the 

proposed actions, nor will there be a 

significant increase in the amount of 

liquid radiological effluents or solid 

radiological effluents released into the 

environment. 

The proposed actions will not change 

normal plant operating conditions (i.e., 

no changes are expected in the fuel 

handling, operational, or storing 

processes). The fuel storage and 

handling, radioactive waste, and other 

systems which may contain 

radioactivity are designed to assure 

adequate safety under normal 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52357 

conditions. There will be no significant 

changes in radiation levels during these 

evolutions, and no significant increase 

in the allowable individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation 

exposure is expected to occur. 

The use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel 

with a burnup limit of 62 GWD/MTU 

will not change the potential 

environmental impacts of incident-free 

transportation of spent nuclear fuel or 

the accident risks associated with spent 

fuel transportation if the fuel is cooled 

for 5 years after being discharged from 

the reactor. A PNNL report for the NRC 

(NUREG/CR–6703, January 2001) 

concluded that doses associated with 

incident-free transportation of spent fuel 

with burnup to 75 GWD/MTU are 

bound by the doses given in 10 CFR 

51.52, Table S–4 for all regions of the 

country, based on the dose rates from 

the shipping casks being maintained 

within regulatory limits. Increased fuel 

burnup will decrease the annual 

discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool 

which will postpone the need to remove 

spent fuel from the pool. 

NUREG/CR–6703 determined that no 

increase in environmental effects of 

spent fuel transportation accidents is 

expected as a result of increasing fuel 

burnup to 75 GWD/MTU. 

Based on the nature of the 

amendment, the proposed actions do 

not result in changes to land use or 

water use, or result in changes to the 

quality or quantity of non-radiological 

effluents. No changes to the National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

permit are needed. No effects on the 

aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the 

vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, 

endangered, or protected species under 

the Endangered Species Act, or impacts 

to essential fish habitat covered by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. 

There are no impacts to the air or 

ambient air quality. There are no 

impacts to historic and cultural 

resources. There would be no noticeable 

effect on socioeconomic conditions in 

the region. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of non-radiological 

environmental impacts are expected as 

a result of the proposed actions. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

actions. 

For more detailed information 

regarding the environmental impacts of 

extended fuel burnup, please refer to the 

study conducted by PNNL for the NRC, 

entitled ‘‘Environmental Effects of 

Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/ 

MTU’’ (NUREG/CR–6073, PNL–13257, 

January 2001, Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML010310298). The details of the NRC 

staff’s Safety Evaluation will be issued 

concurrently with the amendment. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Actions 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. Thus, 

the environmental impacts of the 

proposed actions and the alternative 

action are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for Donald C. 

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, or the 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants: Regarding Donald C. 

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2— 

Final Report (NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 20), dated May 2005. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on July 14, 2011, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Michigan State 

official regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

officials had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed actions will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed actions, see the licensee’s 

letter dated October 29, 2009 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093140092). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible electronically 

from the ADAMS Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of August, 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Peter S. Tam, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21340 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–278; NRC–2011–0178] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Peach Bottom 

Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Notice of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing and 

Order Imposing Procedures for 

Document Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of license amendment 

request, opportunity to comment, 

opportunity to request a hearing, and 

Commission order. 

DATES: Submit comments by September 

21, 2011. A request for a hearing must 

be filed by October 21, 2011. Any 

potential party as defined in Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) 2.4 who believes access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and/or Safeguards 

Information is necessary to respond to 

this notice must request document 

access by September 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0178 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES