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
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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
