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 https://
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 https://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