Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Notices 53813 

vessel that includes thick shield plugs at 

either end. To support the pressure 

increase structural design changes were 

made to the DSC to ensure that the 

confinement boundary for the spent 

nuclear fuel is maintained under the 

proposed design pressure limit of 100 

psig for all specified normal operation, 

off-normal operation, and accident 

conditions. The staff has determined 

that the proposed action would not 

endanger life or property. No effluents 

are released from the ISFSI during 

operation and the proposed changes 

have no impact to DSC loading 

activities. Therefore, there is no 

significant change in the type or 

significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite. There is also no significant 

increase with regard to individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation 

exposures because of the proposed 

action. There are no significant 

radiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action 

because the NUHOMS–32P DSC 

includes design changes to ensure the 

confinement boundary for the spent 

nuclear fuel is maintained under the 

proposed design pressure limit of 100 

psig. 

The amendment only affects the 

requirements associated with the 

loading of the casks and does not affect 

non-radiological plant effluents or any 

other aspects of the environment. 

Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the 

proposed action. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

concludes that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Alternative to the Proposed Action: 

As an alternative to the proposed action, 

the staff considered denial of the 

amendment request (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Approval or denial 

of the amendment request would result 

in minimal change in the environmental 

impacts. Therefore, the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and the 

alternative action are similar. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On 

August 11, 2005, Richard McLean of the 

State of Maryland was contacted 

regarding the proposed action and had 

no concerns. The NRC staff has 

determined that consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

is not required for this specific 

amendment and will not affect listed 

species or critical habitat. The NRC staff 

has also determined that the proposed 

action is not a type of activity having 

the potential to cause effects on historic 

properties. Therefore, no consultation is 

required under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Conclusions: The staff has reviewed 

the amendment request submitted by 

CCNPP and changing the DSC design 

basis pressure limit would have no 

significant impact on the environment. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The environmental impacts of the 

proposed action have been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the 

foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the 

proposed action of approving the 

amendment to the license will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined that an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed license amendment is not 

warranted. 

The request for amendment was 

docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket 

72–8. For further details with respect to 

this action, see the proposed license 

amendment dated May 16, 2005. The 

NRC maintains an Agencywide 

Documents Access Management System 

(ADAMS), which provides text and 

image files of NRC’s public documents. 

These documents may be accessed 

through the NRC’s Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at: http: 

//www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Copies of the referenced documents will 

also be available for review at the NRC 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 

20852. PDR reference staff can be 

contacted at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–

4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The 

PDR reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st of 

August, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph M. Sebrosky, 

Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 

Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 05–17971 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 72–39] 

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 

Company Haddam Neck Plant 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

considering issuance of an exemption to 

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 

Company (CYAPCO or licensee), 

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 

specific provisions of 10 CFR 

72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 

72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is 

using the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister 

System (NAC–MPC), Certificate of 

Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, to store 

spent fuel under a general license in an 

independent spent fuel storage 

installation (ISFSI) associated with the 

operation of the Haddam Neck Plant, 

located in Middlesex County, 

Connecticut. The requested exemption 

would allow CYAPCO to deviate from 

requirements of the NAC–MPC CoC No. 

1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications for the NAC–

MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training 

Program. Specifically, the exemption 

would relieve the licensee from the 

requirement to develop training 

modules under its Systems Approach to 

Training (SAT) that includes 

comprehensive instructions for the 

operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, 

except for the NAC–MPC System. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

CYAPCO from regulatory requirements 

to develop certain training. By letter 

dated June 1, 2005, the licensee 

requested exemptions from certain 

regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 

72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 

72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which require 

a general license to store spent fuel in 

a NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask 

under the terms and conditions set forth 

in the CoC. The proposed exemption 

would allow the licensee to deviate 

from the requirements in CoC No. 1025, 

Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications for the NAC–

MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training 

Program. 

CoC No. 1025, Amendment 4, 

Appendix A, Technical Specifications 

for the NAC–MPC System, Section A 

5.1, Training Program, requires that a 

training program for the NAC–MPC 

System be developed under the general 

licensee’s SAT Program. Further, the 

training modules must include 

comprehensive instructions for the 

operation and maintenance of both the 

NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. By 

exempting the licensee from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 

72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 

for this request, the licensee will not be 

required to develop training modules 

that include comprehensive instructions 

for the operation and maintenance of 

the ISFSI. 

53814 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Notices 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

Granting the requested exemptions 

will relieve the licensee of the 

requirement to develop training 

modules under the SAT that include 

comprehensive instructions for the 

operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, 

except for the NAC–MPC System. Thus, 

the licensee will not incur the costs 

associated with this activity. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has reviewed the exemption 

requests submitted by the licensee. The 

staff determined that not requiring the 

licensee to develop training modules 

including comprehensive instructions 

for the operation and maintenance of 

the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC 

System, is an administrative change, 

and would have no significant impacts 

to the environment. 

Further, NRC has evaluated the 

impact to public safety that would result 

from granting the requested exemptions. 

CYAPCO has stated that for activities 

associated with operation and 

maintenance of ISFSI structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) that 

are not important to safety, CYAPCO 

will provide training/instructions in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and CYAPCO approved 

procedures. NRC determined that 

requiring the licensee to develop 

training modules under its SAT for the 

operation and maintenance of ISFSI 

SSCs considered not-important-to-safety 

would not provide a commensurate 

increase in public safety associated with 

the costs. Therefore, allowing the 

licensee to develop these modules 

separately from its SAT does not impact 

public safety. 

The proposed action would not 

increase the probability or consequences 

of accidents, no changes would be made 

to the types of effluents released offsite, 

and there would be no increase in 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

The potential environmental impact 

of using the NAC–MPC System was 

initially presented in the Environmental 

Assessment for the Final Rule to add the 

NAC–MPC System to the list of 

approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 

CFR 72.214 (65 FR 12444, dated March 

9, 2000), as revised in Amendment No. 

1 (66 FR 45749, dated August 30, 2001), 

in Amendment No. 2 (67 FR 11566, 

dated March 15, 2002), in Amendment 

No. 3 (68 FR 42570, dated July 18, 

2003), and in Amendment No. 4 (69 FR 

50053, dated August 13, 2004). 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Since there is no significant 

environmental impact associated with 

the proposed action, alternatives with 

equal or greater environmental impacts 

were not evaluated. As an alternative to 

the proposed action, the staff considered 

denial of the proposed action. Denial of 

the exemption request would have the 

same environmental impact as the 

proposed action. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

On July 6, 2005, the staff consulted 

with Mr. Michael Firsick of the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of 

Radiation, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. He had 

no comments. The NRC staff has 

determined that a consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

is not required because the proposed 

action will not affect listed species or 

critical habitat. The NRC staff has also 

determined that the proposed action is 

not a type of activity having the 

potential to cause effects on historic 

properties. Therefore, no further 

consultation is required under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The environmental impacts of the 

proposed action have been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the 

foregoing Environmental Assessment, 

the NRC finds that the proposed action 

of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 

72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 

72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not 

requiring the licensee to develop 

training modules under its SAT that 

includes comprehensive instructions for 

the operation and maintenance of the 

ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to this 

exemption request, see CYAPCO’s letter 

dated June 1, 2005. The exemption 

request was docketed under 10 CFR 72, 

Docket No. 72–39. The NRC maintains 

an Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. These documents 

may be accessed through the NRC’s 

Public Electronic Reading Room on the 

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams/web-based.html. If you do 

not have access to ADAMS or if there 

are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, or 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail at 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day 

of August, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

L. Raynard Wharton, 

Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 05–17970 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 030–19526] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment for Elan Operations, Inc., 

Princeton, NJ Facility 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Nicholson, Commercial and R&D 

Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials 

Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, 

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, 

telephone (610) 337–5236, fax (610) 

337–5269; or by e-mail: jjn@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is issuing a license amendment to 

Elan Operations, Inc. (formerly Elan 

Pharmaceuticals and The Liposome 

Company), Materials License No. 29–

19918–01, to authorize release of its 

facility in Princeton, New Jersey for 

unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of this action in accordance 

with the requirements of 10 CFR part 

51. Based on the EA, the NRC has 

concluded that a Finding of No