[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66947-66948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31804]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket 72-20]


U.S. Department of Energy Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation, Materials License No. SNM-2508; Issuance of 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from a 
specific provision of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) to the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) for the Three Mile Island 2 (TMI-2) Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation (ISFSI) located in Idaho. The requested exemption 
would allow DOE to deviate from the requirement of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) 
for a biennial onsite emergency preparedness (EP) exercise. The 
requested exemption would allow the onsite exercise to be performed 
prior to June 30, 2002, instead of prior to December 31, 2001, which is 
the expiration of the biennial period for the conduct of an EP exercise 
at the TMI-2 ISFSI.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Identification of Proposed Action: By letter dated November 21, 
2001, DOE requested an extension of time in which to perform the next 
onsite biennial EP exercise required by 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12)(i). Staff 
has considered an exemption from this provision of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12). 
DOE holds Materials License No. SNM-2508, issued March 19, 1999, for 
operation of the TMI-2 ISFSI located within the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).
    On March 16, 1999, DOE performed the first onsite EP exercise for 
the TMI-2 ISFSI. The requirement of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) is that onsite 
EP exercises be conducted biennially, that is every other calendar 
year. With the last performance of the TMI-2 ISFSI EP exercise on March 
16, 1999, the next required performance of the exercise would be prior 
to December 31, 2001. DOE had scheduled its next biennial exercise for 
September 12, 2001. However, due to the tragic events of September 11, 
2001, the exercise was postponed.
    By exempting DOE from the provision of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) 
requiring a biennial exercise, DOE will be authorized to delay 
performance of the biennial onsite EP exercise at the TMI-2 ISFSI until 
June 30, 2002. The proposed action before the Commission is whether to 
grant this exemption under 10 CFR 72.7.
    Need for the Proposed Action: Conduct of an exercise of an ISFSI's 
onsite emergency plan every 2 years is required by 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12). 
The licensee had initially planned to conduct an exercise of its onsite 
emergency plan on September 12, 2001, within the required 2-year 
interval. However, due to heavy demands on INEEL security and emergency 
preparedness resources pursuant to the tragic events of September 11, 
2001, and the prospect of continued terrorist threats against the 
United States, and the need for those resources to remain focused on 
assessing the security and emergency preparedness/response posture at 
INEEL, the licensee decided to postpone the exercise.
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The proposed action 
involves an administrative activity (a scheduler change in conducting 
an exercise) unrelated to ISFSI operations.
    The last EP exercise was conducted on March 16, 1999. NRC reviews 
and inspections since the 1999 exercise have not identified a decline 
in the effectiveness of DOE's emergency response capability. The 
postponement should have no impact on the effectiveness of DOE's 
emergency response capability. Moreover, as DOE points out, the re-
scheduled exercise may be of more value after any additional security 
and/or emergency response measures are put into effect in light of the 
tragic events of September 11, 2001.
    The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the amounts or 
types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not affect non-radiological effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental 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 proposed action 
(i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would 
result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are the same.
    Agencies and Persons Consulted: On December 19, 2001, Mr. Doug 
Walker and Ms. Kathleen Trever of the State of Idaho, INEEL Oversight 
Program, were contacted about the Environmental Assessment for the 
proposed action. The state officials had no comments related to the 
appropriateness of issuance of the exemption, or the Staff's basis for 
issuance of the exemption. The state officials discussed several 
comments related to additional information in DOE's letter request 
dated November 21, 2001, that were unrelated to the Staff's basis for 
issuance of the exemption. The state officials mentioned they will 
follow up on those concerns with a letter to DOE, and will provide a 
copy of that letter to the NRC. However, the state officials agreed 
that issuance of the exemption need not be delayed due to the unrelated 
concerns.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.

[[Page 66948]]

    The licensee's letter was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket 72-
20. For further details with respect to this action, see DOE's request 
dated November 21, 2001. 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/NRC/ADAMS/index.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, 301-415-4737 or by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1b1a5b381afb3a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89f9edfbc9e7fbeaa7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December, 2001.
Charles L. Miller,
Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 01-31804 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>