Sacramento Municipal Utility District Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment, 16881-16882 [E5-1452]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 62 / Friday, April 1, 2005 / Notices
institutional controls directly with the
College.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff concludes that the
proposed action complies with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted use
as stipulated in 10 CFR 20.1402. The
licensee demonstrated that any
remaining residual radioactivity will not
result in radiological exposures in
excess of the 25 millirem (0.25
millisievert) total effective dose
equivalent limit specified in § 20.1402.
Dose modeling indicates that current
and future members of the public will
not receive any radiological dose from
the burial site. The NRC staff prepared
this EA in support of the proposed
action to amend the license. On the
basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded
that there are no significant
environmental impacts and the license
amendment does not warrant the
preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement. Accordingly, it has been
determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
A copy of this document will be
available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available
Records (PARS) component of the
NRC’s document system. From this site,
you can access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. The following references are
available for inspection at NRC’s Public
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
ADAMS accession numbers are located
in parentheses following the reference.
1. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, February 17, 2003
(ML030850812).
2. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, April 25, 2003
(ML031220675).
3. NRC, ‘‘Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs,’’
NUREG–1748, August 2003
(ML032540811).
4. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, August 25, 2003
(ML032400519).
5. NRC, ‘‘Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance,’’ NUREG–
1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September
2003 (ML032530410).
6. NRC, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC-Licensed
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Mar 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
Nuclear Facilities,’’ NUREG–1496, July
1997 (ML042310492).
7. Satorius, Mark, ‘‘Request for
Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at
Augustana College,’’ NRC letter to State
of South Dakota, September 10, 2004
(ML042540432).
8. Lancaster, Rick, ‘‘Request for
Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at
Augustana College,’’ State of South
Dakota letter to NRC, September 23,
2004 (ML042730227).
9. Satorius, Mark, ‘‘Request for
Institutional Controls Over Former
Burial Site at Augustana College,’’ NRC
letter to State of South Dakota, October
27, 2004 (ML043010521).
10. Evans, Robert, ‘‘Telephone Call
With State of South Dakota Regarding
Former Burial Site at Augustana
College,’’ NRC Memorandum To Docket
File, December 8, 2004
(ML0434400520).
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 (800) 397–4209, (301)
415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 22nd day of
March 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patricia K. Holahan,
Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region IV.
[FR Doc. E5–1449 Filed 3–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–11]
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Regarding an
Amendment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16881
(301) 415–1336; fax number: (301) 415–
8555; e-mail: jrh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the staff) is considering issuance of
an amendment to Special Nuclear
Materials License No. 2510 that would
allow for the storage of Greater Than
Class C (GTCC) waste at the Rancho
Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI). The Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is
currently storing spent nuclear fuel at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI on the site of the
decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear
Generating Station in Sacramento
County, California.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action
By application, dated July 29, 2004,
SMUD submitted a request to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
in accordance with Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56,
‘‘Application for amendment of
license,’’ to amend the license to allow
for the storage of GTCC waste at the
Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to
store the GTCC waste in a GTCC
canister and load the canister into a
Horizontal Storage Module in the
NUHOMS–24P dry cask storage system
used at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD
proposes to co-locate the GTCC waste
canister with the spent fuel canisters at
the ISFSI, but no GTCC waste will be
co-mingled with the spent fuel.
The proposed action before the NRC
is whether to approve the amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action
SMUD is in the process of
decommissioning the Rancho Seco
Nuclear Generating Station in
Sacramento County, California. SMUD
needs to temporarily store GTCC waste
resulting from plant operations and
from decommissioning, such as
activated metals in the form of baffles
and formers, cut-up sections of incoreinstrument tips, and associated surface
contamination, in the ISFSI until there
is a permanent repository that will
accept GTCC waste. Approving the
amendment would allow the licensee to
store GTCC at the Rancho Seco ISFSI.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The staff has reviewed the
amendment request submitted by the
licensee and has determined that
allowing the storage of GTCC waste at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI would have no
significant impacts to the environment.
In its Safety Evaluation Report related to
the ISFSI license, the NRC staff found
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
16882
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 62 / Friday, April 1, 2005 / Notices
that the proposed GTCC canister is
functionally identical to those spent fuel
canisters currently being stored at the
ISFSI. Once the GTCC waste is loaded
into the canister, the operational steps
to drain, seal and transfer the GTCC
waste to the ISFSI are essentially
identical to those for a fuel canister
except that the GTCC waste canister
loading and processing operations will
be conducted in the Reactor Building as
opposed to the Spent Fuel Building.
There are no credible scenarios by
which liquid or gaseous effluents could
be released from the GTCC waste
canister. Furthermore, the NUHOMS–
24P dry cask storage system used at the
Rancho Seco ISFSI is a passive system
which, by design, produces no gaseous
or liquid effluent.
The staff has determined that the
proposed action would not endanger life
or property. Further, the staff concludes
that there is reasonable assurance that
the proposed amendment will have no
impact on off-site doses because the
licensee is currently storing GTCC at the
Rancho Seco Site under its 10 CFR Part
50 license.
The proposed action would not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents, no changes would be made
to the types of effluents that may be
released offsite, and there would be no
increase in public exposure, and only
minimal increase in occupational
exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. Additionally, the proposed
action would have no significant impact
on the safe storage of spent fuel at the
Rancho Seco ISFSI.
Furthermore, as documented in the
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Environmental Impact
for the final rule, ‘‘Interim Storage of
Greater than Class C Waste’’ (66 FR
51823; October 11, 2001), the NRC staff
found for the following reasons that
storing NRC-licensed reactor-related
GTCC waste using 10 CFR Part 72 has
no significant environmental impacts:
(1) There is a smaller source term
available for release from normal
operations, or as a result of an accident,
involving GTCC waste as compared to
spent fuel or HLW;
(2) There is a smaller total volume
and curie content of the GTCC waste as
compared to the spent fuel or HLW;
(3) The previous findings related to
the environmental impacts in NUREG–
0575, ‘‘Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on Handling and
Storage of Spent Light Water Power
Reactor Fuel,’’ dated August 1979, and
NUREG–1092, ‘‘Environmental
Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Mar 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
Licensing Requirements for the
Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste’’
concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts for these
activities; and
(4) GTCC waste is already being safely
stored by 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. Relicensing of this material under a 10
CFR Part 72 specific license requires an
approved safety analysis report. The
approval process requires that each
application or amendment be
individually reviewed and approved
before storage would be allowed under
a specific 10 CFR Part 72 license.
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). If the request was
denied, SMUD would need to continue
to store the GTCC waste under its 10
CFR Part 50 license, either in its existing
location or in another appropriately
shielded configuration. This would
limit the extent to which SMUD could
complete its decommissioning activities
for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
Station. Approval or denial of the
amendment request would result in no
change in the environmental impacts.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative
action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff prepared this
environmental assessment (EA) and
contacted the California Department of
Health Services, Radiologic Health
Branch. Staff provided the State with a
draft copy of this EA for review. Mr.
Steve Hsu responded on behalf of the
State of California and stated that he
had no comments on the EA or the
Finding of No Significant Impact. The
NRC staff has determined that
consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act is not required
for this specific amendment, which 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.
Conclusion
The staff has reviewed the
amendment request submitted by SMUD
and has determined that allowing the
storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho
Seco ISFSI would have no significant
impact on the environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Finding of No Significant Impact
The environmental impacts of
allowing the storage of GTCC waste at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI 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 amendment is not
warranted.
The request for amendment was
docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket
72–11. For further details with respect
to this action, see the request for the
license amendment dated July 29, 2004.
Supporting documentation is available
for inspection at the NRC’s Public
Electronic Reading Room at: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. A
copy of the EA and FONSI can be found
at this site using the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS). These documents
may also be viewed electronically on
the public computers located at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents for a fee. 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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of March, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–1452 Filed 3–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Compliance Assistance Resources and
Points of Contact Available to Small
Businesses
Authority: The Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act (44 U.S.C. 3520)
Office of Management and
Budget, Executive Office of the
President.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 62 (Friday, April 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16881-16882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-11]
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415-1336; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail:
jrh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the staff) is considering issuance of an amendment to Special
Nuclear Materials License No. 2510 that would allow for the storage of
Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste at the Rancho Seco Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) is currently storing spent nuclear fuel at the Rancho
Seco ISFSI on the site of the decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear
Generating Station in Sacramento County, California.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action
By application, dated July 29, 2004, SMUD submitted a request to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56, ``Application for
amendment of license,'' to amend the license to allow for the storage
of GTCC waste at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to store the GTCC
waste in a GTCC canister and load the canister into a Horizontal
Storage Module in the NUHOMS-24P dry cask storage system used at the
Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to co-locate the GTCC waste canister
with the spent fuel canisters at the ISFSI, but no GTCC waste will be
co-mingled with the spent fuel.
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the
amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action
SMUD is in the process of decommissioning the Rancho Seco Nuclear
Generating Station in Sacramento County, California. SMUD needs to
temporarily store GTCC waste resulting from plant operations and from
decommissioning, such as activated metals in the form of baffles and
formers, cut-up sections of incore-instrument tips, and associated
surface contamination, in the ISFSI until there is a permanent
repository that will accept GTCC waste. Approving the amendment would
allow the licensee to store GTCC at the Rancho Seco ISFSI.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted by the
licensee and has determined that allowing the storage of GTCC waste at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI would have no significant impacts to the
environment. In its Safety Evaluation Report related to the ISFSI
license, the NRC staff found
[[Page 16882]]
that the proposed GTCC canister is functionally identical to those
spent fuel canisters currently being stored at the ISFSI. Once the GTCC
waste is loaded into the canister, the operational steps to drain, seal
and transfer the GTCC waste to the ISFSI are essentially identical to
those for a fuel canister except that the GTCC waste canister loading
and processing operations will be conducted in the Reactor Building as
opposed to the Spent Fuel Building. There are no credible scenarios by
which liquid or gaseous effluents could be released from the GTCC waste
canister. Furthermore, the NUHOMS-24P dry cask storage system used at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI is a passive system which, by design, produces no
gaseous or liquid effluent.
The staff has determined that the proposed action would not
endanger life or property. Further, the staff concludes that there is
reasonable assurance that the proposed amendment will have no impact on
off-site doses because the licensee is currently storing GTCC at the
Rancho Seco Site under its 10 CFR Part 50 license.
The proposed action would not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of
effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no increase
in public exposure, and only minimal increase in occupational exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action. Additionally, the proposed action
would have no significant impact on the safe storage of spent fuel at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI.
Furthermore, as documented in the Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact for the final rule,
``Interim Storage of Greater than Class C Waste'' (66 FR 51823; October
11, 2001), the NRC staff found for the following reasons that storing
NRC-licensed reactor-related GTCC waste using 10 CFR Part 72 has no
significant environmental impacts:
(1) There is a smaller source term available for release from
normal operations, or as a result of an accident, involving GTCC waste
as compared to spent fuel or HLW;
(2) There is a smaller total volume and curie content of the GTCC
waste as compared to the spent fuel or HLW;
(3) The previous findings related to the environmental impacts in
NUREG-0575, ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling
and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,'' dated August
1979, and NUREG-1092, ``Environmental Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72
Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste'' concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts for these activities; and
(4) GTCC waste is already being safely stored by 10 CFR Part 50
licensees. Re-licensing of this material under a 10 CFR Part 72
specific license requires an approved safety analysis report. The
approval process requires that each application or amendment be
individually reviewed and approved before storage would be allowed
under a specific 10 CFR Part 72 license.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the amendment request (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
If the request was denied, SMUD would need to continue to store the
GTCC waste under its 10 CFR Part 50 license, either in its existing
location or in another appropriately shielded configuration. This would
limit the extent to which SMUD could complete its decommissioning
activities for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Approval or
denial of the amendment request would result in no change in the
environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff prepared this environmental assessment (EA) and
contacted the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic
Health Branch. Staff provided the State with a draft copy of this EA
for review. Mr. Steve Hsu responded on behalf of the State of
California and stated that he had no comments on the EA or the Finding
of No Significant Impact. The NRC staff has determined that
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not
required for this specific amendment, which 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.
Conclusion
The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted by SMUD and
has determined that allowing the storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho
Seco ISFSI would have no significant impact on the environment.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The environmental impacts of allowing the storage of GTCC waste at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI 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 amendment is not warranted.
The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket
72-11. For further details with respect to this action, see the request
for the license amendment dated July 29, 2004. Supporting documentation
is available for inspection at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room
at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. A copy of the EA and
FONSI can be found at this site using the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. 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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-1452 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
