Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Exemption of Material for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, License DPR-007, Eureka, CA, 69138-69140 [2010-28397]

Download as PDF 69138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would allow SNC to use GNF–Ziron (GNF—Global Nuclear Fuel), an advanced alloy fuel cladding material for boiling-water reactors which is similar in composition to Zircaloy-2, but contains slightly higher iron content than specified in American Society for Testing and Materials B350 (ASTM B350). The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated May 12, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML101340739). emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed so that SNC can use GNF–Ziron as an advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding and other assembly structural components at the HNP. Section 50.46 of 10 CFR and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, make no provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than zircaloy or ZIRLOTM. Since the chemical composition of the GNF–Ziron alloy differs from the specifications for zircaloy or ZIRLOTM, a plant-specific exemption is required to allow the use of the GNF–Ziron alloy as a cladding material or in other assembly structural components at the HNP. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to use GNF–Ziron fuel rod cladding material would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the Safety Analysis Report. There will be no change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. No changes will be made to plant buildings or the site property. Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption. The proposed action does 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 of the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 223001 protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes to or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The details of the NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation, if granted. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives 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 exemption request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, dated 1978 and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2— Final Report (NUREG–1437, Supplement 4) dated May 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011420057) Agencies and Persons Consulted Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for an exemption and license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. 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 ADAMS accession number for the document related to this notice, ‘‘Edwin I. Hatch, Unit 2 Proposed Exemption from Fuel Cladding Material Requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Appendix K,’’ dated May 12, 2010, including non-proprietary publically available versions of its enclosures, is ML101340739. 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 e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s Public Document Room (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 Rockville, Maryland, November 2, 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–28400 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–133; NRC–2010–0346] In accordance with its stated policy, on October 25, 2010, the staff consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. Jim Hardeman of the Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Exemption of Material for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, License DPR–007, Eureka, CA Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. John Hickman, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T8F5, Washington, DC 20555–00001, telephone (301) 415–3017, e-mail john.hickman@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a request dated April 1, 2010, as supplemented August 12, 2010, by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, the licensee) for alternate disposal of approximately 200,000 cubic feet of hazardous waste containing lowactivity radioactive debris, at the US Ecology Idaho (USEI) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous disposal facility located near Grand View, Idaho. This request was made under the alternate disposal provision contained in 10 CFR 20.2002 and the exemption provision in 10 CFR 30.11. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action On July 2, 1976, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 was shut down for annual refueling and to conduct seismic modifications. In 1983, updated economic analyses indicated that restarting Unit 3 would probably not be cost-effective, and in June 1983, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced its intention to decommission the unit. On July 16, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Amendment No. 19 to the HBPP Unit 3 Operating License to change the status to possessbut-not-operate. In December of 2008, the transfer of spent fuel from the fuel storage pool to the dry-cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation was completed, and the decontamination and dismantlement phase of HBPP Unit 3 decommissioning commenced. In 2010 the construction of a new power generation facility on site will be completed and the licensee will begin dismantlement of the non-nuclear HBPP Units 1 and 2. PG&E requested NRC authorization for the disposal of waste from the HBPP at the US Ecology Idaho (USEI) facility in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002. This waste would be generated during the decommissioning of the non-nuclear Units 1 and 2 and the nuclear Unit 3. This waste consists of approximately 200,000 ft3 (5,663 m3) of concrete, steel, insulation, roofing material, and other debris from Units 1 and 2 as well as VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 223001 concrete shielding, building materials, and soil debris from Unit 3. The waste would be transported by truck from HBPP in Eureka, CA to the USEI facility, Grand View, Idaho in the Owyhee Desert. The USEI facility is a Subtitle C Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste disposal facility permitted by the State of Idaho. The USEI site has both natural and engineered features that limit the transport of radioactive material. The natural features include the low precipitation rate [i.e., 18.4 cm/y (7.4 in. per year)] and the long vertical distance to groundwater (i.e., 61-meter (203-ft) thick on average unsaturated zone below the disposal zone). The engineered features include an engineered cover, liners and leachate monitoring systems. Because the USEI facility is not licensed by the NRC, this proposed action would require the NRC to exempt the low-contaminated material authorized for disposal from further AEA and NRC licensing requirements. Need for Proposed Action The subject waste material consists of concrete, steel, insulation, roofing material, gravel and other metal, wood and soil debris generated during dismantlement activities located at the HBPP site, the majority being from the non-nuclear Units 1 and 2. This proposed alternate disposal would conserve low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluation performed by the Licensee to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal criteria. Under these criteria, a licensee may seek NRC authorization to dispose of licensed material using procedures not otherwise authorized by the NRC’s regulations. A licensee’s supporting analysis must show that the radiological doses arising from the proposed 10 CFR 20.2002 disposal will be as low as reasonably achievable and within the 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits. PG&E performed a radiological assessment in consultation with USEI. Based on this assessment, PG&E concludes that potential doses to members of the public, including workers involved in the transportation and placement of this waste, will be less than one millirem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) in one calendar year for this project, and well within the ‘‘few millirem’’ criteria that the NRC has established. PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 69139 The staff evaluated activities and potential doses associated with transportation, waste handling and disposal as part of the review of this 10 CFR 20.2002 application. The projected doses to individual transportation and USEI workers have been appropriately estimated and are demonstrated to meet the NRC’s alternate disposal requirement of contributing a dose of not more than ‘‘a few millirem per year’’ to any member of the public. Independent review of the post-closure and intruder scenarios confirmed that the maximum projected dose over a period of 1,000 years is also within ‘‘a few millirem per year.’’ Additionally, the proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposures. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents, air quality or noise. The proposed action and attendant exemption of the material from further AEA and NRC licensing requirements will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the very small amounts of radioactive material involved, the environmental impacts of the proposed action are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would deny the disposal request. This denial of the request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for review on October 6, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the State replied E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1 69140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices by e-mail. The State stated that they did not intend to respond. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. 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 documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. (1) Letter dated April 1, 2010, ‘‘Request for 10 CFR 20.2002 Alternate Disposal Approval and 10 CFR 30.11 Exemption of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Waste for Disposal at US Ecology Idaho.’’ [ADAMS Accession Number ML101170554] (2) E–Mail dated August 11, 2010, providing Radiological Characterization Report for Humboldt Bay Power Plant. [ML102300557] (3) Letter dated August 12, 2010, ‘‘Revision to Request for 10 CFR 20.2002 Alternate Disposal Approval and 10 CFR 30.11 Exemption of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Waste for Disposal at US Ecology Idaho.’’ [ML102290019] (4) E–Mail dated September 18, 2010, providing MARSAME process for Humboldt Bay Power Plant. [ML102700555] (5) Letter dated January 21, 2010, providing supplemental information on USEI [ML100291004] (6) Letter dated March 31, 2010, providing supplemental information on USEI [ML100950386] VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 223001 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 e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These 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 Rockville, Maryland, November 2, 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. 2010–28397 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2010–0344] NUREG–1953, Confirmatory ThermalHydraulic Analysis To Support Specific Success Criteria in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Models—Surry and Peach Bottom; Draft Report for Comment Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. AGENCY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued for public comment a document entitled: NUREG– 1953, ‘‘Confirmatory Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis to Support Specific Success Criteria in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Models—Surry and Peach Bottom, Draft Report for Comment.’’ DATES: Please submit comments by December 15, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. SUMMARY: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC–2010– 0344 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 Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC–2010–0344. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492–3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, or by fax to RADB at 301–492– 3446. You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods: NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr. resource@nrc.gov. NUREG–1953 is available electronically under ADAMS Accession Number ML102940233. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0344. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Helton, Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69138-69140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28397]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-133; NRC-2010-0346]


Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
Related to Exemption of Material for Proposed Disposal Procedures for 
the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, License DPR-007, Eureka, CA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental

[[Page 69139]]

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: 
T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-00001, telephone (301) 415-3017, e-mail 
john.hickman@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a 
request dated April 1, 2010, as supplemented August 12, 2010, by 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, the licensee) for alternate 
disposal of approximately 200,000 cubic feet of hazardous waste 
containing low-activity radioactive debris, at the US Ecology Idaho 
(USEI) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C 
hazardous disposal facility located near Grand View, Idaho. This 
request was made under the alternate disposal provision contained in 10 
CFR 20.2002 and the exemption provision in 10 CFR 30.11.
    This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been developed in accordance 
with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.

II. Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    On July 2, 1976, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 was shut 
down for annual refueling and to conduct seismic modifications. In 
1983, updated economic analyses indicated that restarting Unit 3 would 
probably not be cost-effective, and in June 1983, Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company (PG&E) announced its intention to decommission the 
unit. On July 16, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
issued Amendment No. 19 to the HBPP Unit 3 Operating License to change 
the status to possess-but-not-operate. In December of 2008, the 
transfer of spent fuel from the fuel storage pool to the dry-cask 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation was completed, and the 
decontamination and dismantlement phase of HBPP Unit 3 decommissioning 
commenced. In 2010 the construction of a new power generation facility 
on site will be completed and the licensee will begin dismantlement of 
the non-nuclear HBPP Units 1 and 2.
    PG&E requested NRC authorization for the disposal of waste from the 
HBPP at the US Ecology Idaho (USEI) facility in accordance with 10 CFR 
20.2002. This waste would be generated during the decommissioning of 
the non-nuclear Units 1 and 2 and the nuclear Unit 3. This waste 
consists of approximately 200,000 ft\3\ (5,663 m\3\) of concrete, 
steel, insulation, roofing material, and other debris from Units 1 and 
2 as well as concrete shielding, building materials, and soil debris 
from Unit 3.
    The waste would be transported by truck from HBPP in Eureka, CA to 
the USEI facility, Grand View, Idaho in the Owyhee Desert. The USEI 
facility is a Subtitle C Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
hazardous waste disposal facility permitted by the State of Idaho. The 
USEI site has both natural and engineered features that limit the 
transport of radioactive material. The natural features include the low 
precipitation rate [i.e., 18.4 cm/y (7.4 in. per year)] and the long 
vertical distance to groundwater (i.e., 61-meter (203-ft) thick on 
average unsaturated zone below the disposal zone). The engineered 
features include an engineered cover, liners and leachate monitoring 
systems. Because the USEI facility is not licensed by the NRC, this 
proposed action would require the NRC to exempt the low-contaminated 
material authorized for disposal from further AEA and NRC licensing 
requirements.

Need for Proposed Action

    The subject waste material consists of concrete, steel, insulation, 
roofing material, gravel and other metal, wood and soil debris 
generated during dismantlement activities located at the HBPP site, the 
majority being from the non-nuclear Units 1 and 2. This proposed 
alternate disposal would conserve low-level radioactive waste disposal 
capacity.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluation performed by the Licensee 
to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal 
criteria. Under these criteria, a licensee may seek NRC authorization 
to dispose of licensed material using procedures not otherwise 
authorized by the NRC's regulations. A licensee's supporting analysis 
must show that the radiological doses arising from the proposed 10 CFR 
20.2002 disposal will be as low as reasonably achievable and within the 
10 CFR Part 20 dose limits.
    PG&E performed a radiological assessment in consultation with USEI. 
Based on this assessment, PG&E concludes that potential doses to 
members of the public, including workers involved in the transportation 
and placement of this waste, will be less than one millirem total 
effective dose equivalent (TEDE) in one calendar year for this project, 
and well within the ``few millirem'' criteria that the NRC has 
established.
    The staff evaluated activities and potential doses associated with 
transportation, waste handling and disposal as part of the review of 
this 10 CFR 20.2002 application. The projected doses to individual 
transportation and USEI workers have been appropriately estimated and 
are demonstrated to meet the NRC's alternate disposal requirement of 
contributing a dose of not more than ``a few millirem per year'' to any 
member of the public. Independent review of the post-closure and 
intruder scenarios confirmed that the maximum projected dose over a 
period of 1,000 years is also within ``a few millirem per year.'' 
Additionally, the proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposures.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. The 
proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents, air 
quality or noise.
    The proposed action and attendant exemption of the material from 
further AEA and NRC licensing requirements will not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are 
being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, 
and there is no significant increase in occupational or public 
radiation exposure.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Due to the very small amounts of radioactive material involved, the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action are small. Therefore, the 
only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, 
under which the staff would deny the disposal request. This denial of 
the request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. 
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action 
alternative are therefore similar and the no-action alternative is 
accordingly not further considered.

Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the 
proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State 
of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for review on October 6, 
2010. On October 18, 2010, the State replied

[[Page 69140]]

by e-mail. The State stated that they did not intend to respond.
    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that 
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential 
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that 
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant 
Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
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 documents related to this action are listed 
below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
    (1) Letter dated April 1, 2010, ``Request for 10 CFR 20.2002 
Alternate Disposal Approval and 10 CFR 30.11 Exemption of Humboldt Bay 
Power Plant Waste for Disposal at US Ecology Idaho.'' [ADAMS Accession 
Number ML101170554]
    (2) E-Mail dated August 11, 2010, providing Radiological 
Characterization Report for Humboldt Bay Power Plant. [ML102300557]
    (3) Letter dated August 12, 2010, ``Revision to Request for 10 CFR 
20.2002 Alternate Disposal Approval and 10 CFR 30.11 Exemption of 
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Waste for Disposal at US Ecology Idaho.'' 
[ML102290019]
    (4) E-Mail dated September 18, 2010, providing MARSAME process for 
Humboldt Bay Power Plant. [ML102700555]
    (5) Letter dated January 21, 2010, providing supplemental 
information on USEI [ML100291004]
    (6) Letter dated March 31, 2010, providing supplemental information 
on USEI [ML100950386]
    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 e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These 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 Rockville, Maryland, November 2, 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-28397 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P