Exemption of Material for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, Eureka, CA, 26317-26318 [2012-10700]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2012 / Notices
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The final EIS may
also be viewed online at: https://
www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/
levy.html. In addition, the following
four public libraries have agreed to
make the final EIS available to the
public: the Citrus County Coastal Region
Library, located at 8619 West Crystal
Street, Crystal River, Florida; the
Dunnellon Branch Library, located at
20351 Robinson Road, Dunnellon,
Florida; the AF Knotts Public Library,
located at 11 56th Street, Yankeetown,
Florida; and the Bronson Public Library,
located at 600 Gilbert Street, Bronson.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Douglas Bruner, Environmental Projects
Branch 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Mail Stop T6C20M,
Washington, DC, 20555–0001. Mr.
Bruner may be contacted by telephone
at 301–415–2730 or via email at
Douglas.Bruner@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of April, 2012.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David B. Matthews,
Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing,
Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2012–10695 Filed 5–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[[Docket No. 50–133; License DPR–007;
NRC–2012–0101]
Exemption of Material for Proposed
Disposal Procedures for the Humboldt
Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, Eureka, CA
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact.
AGENCY:
John
Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop:
T8F5, Washington, DC 20555–00001,
telephone: (301) 415–3017, email:
john.hickman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff is considering a
request dated June 7, 2011, as
supplemented E–Mail dated January 9,
2012, by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E, the licensee) for
alternate disposal of approximately
2,000,000 cubic feet of hazardous waste
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 May 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (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 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.
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 nuclear
Unit 3. This waste consists of
approximately 2,000,000 cubic feet
(56,634 cubic meters) of hazardous
waste, soil, and debris containing lowactivity radioactive debris generated
during the demolition of structures and
remediation activities at 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26317
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
hazardous waste, soil, and debris
containing low-activity radioactive
debris generated during the demolition
of structures and remediation activities
at Unit 3. 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
approximately 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.
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
26318
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2012 / Notices
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.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to the State
of Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality for review on February 29, 2012.
The State had no comments.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 May 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
online in the NRC Library 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 numbers.
(1) Letter dated June 7, 2011,
‘‘Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3,
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
ML11160A211].
(2) E–Mail dated January 9, 2012,
providing responses to a request for
additional information and corrected
information for the prior submittal
[ADAMS Accession Number
ML120330349].
(3) NRC letter dated November 2,
2010, approving prior request from
Humboldt Bay for 10 CFR 20.2002
alternate disposal and 10 CFR 30.11
exemption [ADAMS Accession Number
ML102870344].
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 email 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.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of April, 2012.
Paul Michalak,
Acting 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. 2012–10700 Filed 5–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287;
NRC–2012–0088]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
Exemption
1.0
Background
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the
licensee) is the holder of Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses DPR–38,
DPR–47, and DPR–55, which authorize
operation of the Oconee Nuclear
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 (ONS, Units 1,
2, and 3). The licenses provide, among
other things, that the facilities are
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of three
pressurized water reactors located in
Oconee County in South Carolina.
2.0
Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix
G, ‘‘Fracture Toughness Requirements,’’
requires that fracture toughness
requirements for ferritic materials of
pressure-retaining components of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary of
light water nuclear power reactors
provide adequate margins of safety
during any condition of normal
operation, including anticipated
operational occurrences and system
hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure
boundary may be subjected over its
service lifetime; and 10 CFR 50.61,
‘‘Fracture Toughness Requirements for
Protection Against Pressurized Thermal
Shock Events,’’ provides fracture
toughness requirements for protection
against pressurized thermal shock (PTS)
events.
By letter dated August 3, 2011
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML11223A010), the
licensee requested exemptions from
certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.61
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The
exemptions would allow use of alternate
initial RTNDT (reference nil ductility
temperature), as described in the NRCapproved topical reports (TRs), BAW–
2308, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 Weld
Materials,’’ Revisions 1–A and 2–A, for
determining the adjusted RTNDT of
Linde 80 weld materials present in the
beltline region of the ONS, Units 1, 2,
and 3 reactor vessels (RVs).
The licensee requested an exemption
from Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 to
replace the required use of the existing
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26317-26318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10700]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[[Docket No. 50-133; License DPR-007; NRC-2012-0101]
Exemption of Material for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the
Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, 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 Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-00001,
telephone: (301) 415-3017, email: john.hickman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a
request dated June 7, 2011, as supplemented E-Mail dated January 9,
2012, by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, the licensee) for
alternate disposal of approximately 2,000,000 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
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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.
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 nuclear Unit 3. This waste consists of approximately 2,000,000
cubic feet (56,634 cubic meters) of hazardous waste, soil, and debris
containing low-activity radioactive debris generated during the
demolition of structures and remediation activities at 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 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 hazardous waste, soil, and
debris containing low-activity radioactive debris generated during the
demolition of structures and remediation activities at Unit 3. 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 approximately 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.
[[Page 26318]]
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
The NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the
State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for review on
February 29, 2012. The State had no comments.
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 online in the NRC Library 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 numbers.
(1) Letter dated June 7, 2011, ``Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3,
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 ML11160A211].
(2) E-Mail dated January 9, 2012, providing responses to a request
for additional information and corrected information for the prior
submittal [ADAMS Accession Number ML120330349].
(3) NRC letter dated November 2, 2010, approving prior request from
Humboldt Bay for 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal and 10 CFR 30.11
exemption [ADAMS Accession Number ML102870344].
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 email 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.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of April, 2012.
Paul Michalak,
Acting 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. 2012-10700 Filed 5-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
