Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 29277-29278 [2011-12444]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2011 / Notices Severstal North America, Inc., Yorkville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572A); Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Mingo Junction, Ohio (TA–W–71,572B); and Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Steubenville, Ohio (TA–W–71,572C), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 17, 2008, through two years from the date of this revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of May, 2011. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2011–12397 Filed 5–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278; NRC– 2011–0112] Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment for renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (PBAPS), located near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC staff prepared an environmental assessment documenting its finding. Based on the results of the environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would revise the renewed Facility Operating Licenses for PBAPS to possess, but not separate, byproduct material, specifically Class B and Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), from Exelon’s Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (LGS). The LLRW will be stored in the PBAPS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility (LLRWSF). The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:22 May 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 January 6, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, and December 6, 2010. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with adequate storage capacity, in lieu of constructing alternate storage facilities, for its Class B and Class C LLRW generated at LGS since it does not currently have access to a licensed disposal facility for this LLRW. The State of South Carolina’s licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, located in Barnwell, has limited access to the facility from radioactive waste generators located in States that are not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Pennsylvania is not a member of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Therefore, LGS and PBAPS do not have access to the Barnwell disposal facility for their Class B and Class C LLRW. LGS does not have the capability to store all the LLRW it generates. However, PBAPS has a LLRWSF capable of safely storing a large amount of LLRW, on an interim basis. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action involves the transportation of LLRW from LGS for interim storage at PBAPS. The LLRW will be transported by truck in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation and NRC regulations. The distance between the plant sites is less than the distance that was previously traveled to the Barnwell disposal facility in South Carolina. The licensee anticipates that there will be approximately two to three shipments a year of LLRW to PBAPS from LGS. The projected number of shipments is consistent with the past annual average number of trips to the Barnwell facility. While the total travel distance for LLRW generated at LGS, once a new disposal site is determined, may be more or less than the current travel distance from LGS to the Barnwell facility, this circumstance is subject to change regardless of interim storage at PBAPS. Since eventual transport of LLWR to a final disposal site will be accomplished in accordance with NRC and DOT regulations, no significant environmental impact will result regardless of the distance to the final disposal site. However, the proposed action will reduce the total annual number of miles driven for the transport of LLRW during the interim storage period. With less miles traveled, it is expected that there will be no change or possibly a corresponding reduction in the impacts associated with PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29277 transportation during the interim storage period, such as lower radiation exposure to the truck driver and members of the public along the transportation route. The proposed action would not result in an increased risk of accidents and radiological hazards beyond those associated with the transport to the Barnwell facility. There will be no change to radioactive effluents from the power plants or the LLRW containers that affect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. The interim storage building is designed to comply with NRC regulatory guidance, primarily Generic Letter 81–38, ‘‘Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites,’’ November 10, 1981, and to meet radiation protection standards in 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against Radiation,’’ and 40 CFR part 190, ‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.’’ Guidance in Section 11.4, ‘‘Solid Waste Management System,’’ of NUREG–0800, ‘‘Safety Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis and Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Revision 3, March 2007, was also reviewed and assessed with respect to the proposed action. The cumulative dose from handling the LLRW from PBAPS and from the additional LLRW from the LGS will be controlled by station procedures to ensure compliance with the radiation dose standards to workers and members of the public. Based on this information, the staff concludes that the radiological impacts associated with the transportation, handling, and storage of LLRW at PBAPS will not result in a significant impact to plant workers and members of the public. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The proposed action does not involve a change to plant buildings or land areas on the PBAPS site. 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. With less miles traveled, it is expected that there will be no change or possibly a corresponding reduction in the impacts associated with transportation such as reduced use of fossil fuels and reduced air emissions E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1 29278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2011 / Notices that would affect air quality during the interim storage period. No changes to the National Pollutant 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 protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to or different types of non-radiological 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 license amendment, if approved by the NRC, which will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative). Denial of the proposed action may result in the eventual need to construct additional LLRW storage space at LGS. The construction of a new storage facility at LGS could involve the disturbance of previously undisturbed soil and would require additional decommissioning and decontamination activities. However, the construction and decommissioning of a LLRW storage facility would be accomplished in accordance with NRC regulations and the LGS Operating License. Therefore, the environmental impact of this alternative would be minimal. Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the ‘‘no action’’ alternative are similar. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for PBAPS Unit 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and for PBAPS Unit 2 and 3, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ (NUREG–1437, Supplement 10), dated January 2003. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:22 May 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 Agencies and Persons Consulted Finding of No Significant Impact In accordance with its stated policy, on December 2, 2010, the NRC staff consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania official, Rich Janati, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. In response, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted the following comments on Exelon Generation Company’s (EGC) proposed action: 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. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated January 6, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, and December 6, 2010. These documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O–1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is providing comments regarding a license amendment request by Exelon Generating Company, LLC (EGC), dated January 6, 2010, to store low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) from Limerick Generating Station (LGS) in the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) LLRW Storage Facility. Considering the nature of the waste, the projected number of shipments and the existing capacity of the on-site storage facility for Class B and C wastes at PBAPS, it is our assessment that the transfer and storage of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS would not pose any danger to public health, safety and the environment. However, this practice should not set a precedent for the transfer of spent nuclear fuel from one facility to another. It is expected that EGC would immediately cease shipments of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS when a disposal facility for Class B and C wastes becomes available. It is also expected that EGC would implement a waste minimization program, consistent with the latest industry guidelines, to reduce the generation of Class B and C wastes at LGS. We are also requesting that EGC report to PADEP, on an annual basis, the amount of LGS waste (by volume and activity) being stored at PBAPS and inform PADEP in advance of any shipments of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS. The NRC staff evaluated PADEP’s comments to determine whether a change was needed to the EA. The NRC staff finds PADEP’s assessment that the transfer and storage of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS would not pose any danger to public health, safety and the environment consistent with the staff’s finding on no significant impact. Therefore, no change will be made to the EA based on the comment. The other comments from PADEP are directed to the licensee, Exelon, and do not change the NRC staff’s assessment that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Therefore, no change will be made to the EA based on these comments. With regard to PADEP’s comments concerning the transfer of spent nuclear fuel, the NRC staff notes that the proposed action does not involve any transfer of spent nuclear fuel from LGS to PBAPS. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of May 2011. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John D. Hughey, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2011–12444 Filed 5–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52–034 and 52–035, NRC– 2008–0594] Luminant Generation Company LLC.; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District as a cooperating agency have published a final environmental impact statement (EIS), NUREG–1943, ‘‘Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4: Final Report.’’ The site comprises approximately 7,950 acres in Hood and Somervell Counties, Texas on the E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29277-29278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12444]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; NRC-2011-0112]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment for renewed Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, 
the licensee) for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3 (PBAPS), located near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC staff prepared an 
environmental assessment documenting its finding. Based on the results 
of the environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no 
significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise the renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses for PBAPS to possess, but not separate, byproduct material, 
specifically Class B and Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), 
from Exelon's Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (LGS). The 
LLRW will be stored in the PBAPS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage 
Facility (LLRWSF).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated January 6, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, and December 6, 2010.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with adequate 
storage capacity, in lieu of constructing alternate storage facilities, 
for its Class B and Class C LLRW generated at LGS since it does not 
currently have access to a licensed disposal facility for this LLRW. 
The State of South Carolina's licensed low-level radioactive waste 
disposal facility, located in Barnwell, has limited access to the 
facility from radioactive waste generators located in States that are 
not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Pennsylvania is not a 
member of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Therefore, LGS and 
PBAPS do not have access to the Barnwell disposal facility for their 
Class B and Class C LLRW. LGS does not have the capability to store all 
the LLRW it generates. However, PBAPS has a LLRWSF capable of safely 
storing a large amount of LLRW, on an interim basis.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action involves the transportation of LLRW from LGS 
for interim storage at PBAPS. The LLRW will be transported by truck in 
accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation and NRC regulations. 
The distance between the plant sites is less than the distance that was 
previously traveled to the Barnwell disposal facility in South 
Carolina. The licensee anticipates that there will be approximately two 
to three shipments a year of LLRW to PBAPS from LGS. The projected 
number of shipments is consistent with the past annual average number 
of trips to the Barnwell facility. While the total travel distance for 
LLRW generated at LGS, once a new disposal site is determined, may be 
more or less than the current travel distance from LGS to the Barnwell 
facility, this circumstance is subject to change regardless of interim 
storage at PBAPS. Since eventual transport of LLWR to a final disposal 
site will be accomplished in accordance with NRC and DOT regulations, 
no significant environmental impact will result regardless of the 
distance to the final disposal site. However, the proposed action will 
reduce the total annual number of miles driven for the transport of 
LLRW during the interim storage period. With less miles traveled, it is 
expected that there will be no change or possibly a corresponding 
reduction in the impacts associated with transportation during the 
interim storage period, such as lower radiation exposure to the truck 
driver and members of the public along the transportation route. The 
proposed action would not result in an increased risk of accidents and 
radiological hazards beyond those associated with the transport to the 
Barnwell facility. There will be no change to radioactive effluents 
from the power plants or the LLRW containers that affect radiation 
exposures to plant workers and members of the public. The interim 
storage building is designed to comply with NRC regulatory guidance, 
primarily Generic Letter 81-38, ``Storage of Low-Level Radioactive 
Wastes at Power Reactor Sites,'' November 10, 1981, and to meet 
radiation protection standards in 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for 
Protection Against Radiation,'' and 40 CFR part 190, ``Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.'' Guidance 
in Section 11.4, ``Solid Waste Management System,'' of NUREG-0800, 
``Safety Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis and Reports for 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 3, March 2007, was also reviewed and 
assessed with respect to the proposed action. The cumulative dose from 
handling the LLRW from PBAPS and from the additional LLRW from the LGS 
will be controlled by station procedures to ensure compliance with the 
radiation dose standards to workers and members of the public. Based on 
this information, the staff concludes that the radiological impacts 
associated with the transportation, handling, and storage of LLRW at 
PBAPS will not result in a significant impact to plant workers and 
members of the public.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    The proposed action does not involve a change to plant buildings or 
land areas on the PBAPS site. 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. With less miles traveled, it 
is expected that there will be no change or possibly a corresponding 
reduction in the impacts associated with transportation such as reduced 
use of fossil fuels and reduced air emissions

[[Page 29278]]

that would affect air quality during the interim storage period. No 
changes to the National Pollutant 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 protected 
species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 
habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no 
impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no impact 
to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to or different types 
of non-radiological 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 license amendment, if approved by the NRC, which will be issued 
as part of the letter to the licensee approving the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff also 
considered denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' 
alternative). Denial of the proposed action may result in the eventual 
need to construct additional LLRW storage space at LGS. The 
construction of a new storage facility at LGS could involve the 
disturbance of previously undisturbed soil and would require additional 
decommissioning and decontamination activities. However, the 
construction and decommissioning of a LLRW storage facility would be 
accomplished in accordance with NRC regulations and the LGS Operating 
License. Therefore, the environmental impact of this alternative would 
be minimal.
    Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the ``no action'' alternative are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
PBAPS Unit 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and for PBAPS Unit 2 and 3, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants,'' (NUREG-1437, Supplement 10), dated January 2003.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on December 2, 2010, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania official, Rich 
Janati, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. In 
response, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
(PADEP) submitted the following comments on Exelon Generation Company's 
(EGC) proposed action:

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) 
is providing comments regarding a license amendment request by 
Exelon Generating Company, LLC (EGC), dated January 6, 2010, to 
store low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) from Limerick Generating 
Station (LGS) in the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) LLRW 
Storage Facility.
    Considering the nature of the waste, the projected number of 
shipments and the existing capacity of the on-site storage facility 
for Class B and C wastes at PBAPS, it is our assessment that the 
transfer and storage of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS would not pose any 
danger to public health, safety and the environment. However, this 
practice should not set a precedent for the transfer of spent 
nuclear fuel from one facility to another.
    It is expected that EGC would immediately cease shipments of 
LLRW from LGS to PBAPS when a disposal facility for Class B and C 
wastes becomes available. It is also expected that EGC would 
implement a waste minimization program, consistent with the latest 
industry guidelines, to reduce the generation of Class B and C 
wastes at LGS. We are also requesting that EGC report to PADEP, on 
an annual basis, the amount of LGS waste (by volume and activity) 
being stored at PBAPS and inform PADEP in advance of any shipments 
of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS.

    The NRC staff evaluated PADEP's comments to determine whether a 
change was needed to the EA. The NRC staff finds PADEP's assessment 
that the transfer and storage of LLRW from LGS to PBAPS would not pose 
any danger to public health, safety and the environment consistent with 
the staff's finding on no significant impact. Therefore, no change will 
be made to the EA based on the comment.
    The other comments from PADEP are directed to the licensee, Exelon, 
and do not change the NRC staff's assessment that there are no 
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. 
Therefore, no change will be made to the EA based on these comments. 
With regard to PADEP's comments concerning the transfer of spent 
nuclear fuel, the NRC staff notes that the proposed action does not 
involve any transfer of spent nuclear fuel from LGS to PBAPS.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    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.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated January 6, 2010, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, and December 6, 2010. These 
documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
    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 send 
an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of May 2011.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-12444 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P