Notices. Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
3,670 words·~17 min read·
/register/2005/05/06/05-8977·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-029] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Exemption of Material in Accordance With 10 CFR 20.2002 for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Yankee Atomic Electric Company; License DPR-003, Rowe, MA 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 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-3017; e-mail *jbh@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)staff is considering a request dated December 22, 2004, as supplemented on February 7, 2005, by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or Licensee), to dispose of demolition debris from decommissioning of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station
(YNPS)in Rowe, Massachusetts. The request for approval is submitted pursuant to section 20.2002 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20.2002), “Method of Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures.” The licensee's request states that the material is acceptable for burial at a subtitle C Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)hazardous waste disposal facility. The intended disposal location, Waste Control Specialists
(WCS)located in Andrews, Texas has a RCRA permit issued by, and is regulated by, the State of Texas, Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TECQ), and any disposal must comply with State requirements. This action, if approved, would also exempt the slightly contaminated material from further Atomic Energy Act and NRC licensing requirements. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. Environmental Assessment Background YNPS is a deactivated pressurized-water nuclear reactor situated on a small portion of a 2,200-acre site. The site is located in northwestern Massachusetts in Franklin County, near the southern Vermont border. The plant and most of the 2,200-acre site are owned by the YAEC. A small portion on the west side of the site (along the east bank of the Sherman Reservoir) is owned by USGen New England, Inc. The YNPS plant was constructed between 1958 and 1960 and operated commercially at 185 megawatts electric (after a 1963 upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC determined that closing of the plant would be in the best economic interest of its customers. In December 1993, NRC amended the YNPS operating license to retain a “possession-only” status. YAEC began dismantling and decommissioning activities at that time. On November 24, 2003, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82, YAEC submitted a License Termination Plan
(LTP)for NRC approval. The LTP is still under review by the NRC. The waste material (the demolition debris) intended for disposal includes structural steel, soils associated with foundation excavations and PCB remediation, and concrete and/or pavement or other similar solid materials. The waste material proposed for disposal at the WCS facility will originate from the demolition and removal of structures and paved surfaces at the YNPS plant site, after the structure/surface has been decontaminated to remove areas of contamination above the release limits. The physical form of this demolition debris will be that of bulk material of various sizes ranging from the size of sand grains up to occasional monoliths with a volume of several cubic feet. YAEC, for the purpose of calculations, assumed the material to be a homogeneous mixture with a specific density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter during shipment and 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter after compaction in the disposal cell at WCS. The material will be dry solid waste containing no absorbents or chelating agents. It is estimated that the mass of demolition debris originating from the decommissioning of the YNPS will total approximately 60 million pounds. After compaction, the estimated volume of material to be disposed of is approximately 250,000 cubic feet. Proposed Action The proposed action is to approve the removal of approximately 30,000 tons of demolition debris from the YNPS, in Rowe, Massachusetts, transportation of the debris and disposition at the WCS facility in Andrews, Texas. The proposed action would also exempt the low-contamination material from further Atomic Energy Act and NRC licensing requirements. The 30,000 tons of demolition debris will consist of Steel, Soil and Asphalt, Reactor Support Structure
(RSS)Concrete, and other Concrete. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated December 22, 2004, as supplemented on February 7, 2005, requesting approval. Need for Proposed Action The licensee needs to dispose of 30,000 tons of demolition debris since the YNPS site is currently conducting decontamination and decommissioning as allowed by 10 CFR 50.82. The licensee proposes to dispose of 30,000 tons of demolition debris at the WCS facility in Andrews, Texas, which is a subtitle C RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility. This proposed action, would also require NRC to exempt the low-contaminated material authorized for disposal from further AEA and NRC licensing requirements. Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives to the proposed action include:
(1)No action alternative,
(2)decontamination of the buildings and structures before demolition, or of the debris until no contamination can be detected,
(3)decontaminating and conducting final status surveys of the buildings, and
(4)handling demolition debris as low-level radioactive waste and shipping them to a low-level waste facility. YAEC has determined that disposal for these demolition wastes in a Subtitle C RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility is less costly than alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Disposal of the demolition debris in the manner proposed is protective of the health and safety, and is the most cost-effective alternative. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the disposal of 30,000 tons of demolition debris at WCS, a subtitle C Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)hazardous waste disposal facility. This evaluation is for the disposal of the demolition debris at WCS irrespective of other materials disposed of at the facility. The licensee's analysis used conservative estimates of the average radionuclide concentrations based on ongoing site characterization. The licensee analyzed the dose to a transport driver, loader, disposal facility worker, and long-term impacts to a resident. Each of the analyses conservatively estimated the exposure to be less than 1.0 mrem total dose per year. The NRC has reviewed the licensee's analysis and agrees with the determination that the proposed action will not significantly increase occupational or public radiation exposures. The licensee's supplemental submittal provided an evaluation for an alternative transportation plan utilizing intermodal containers on a rail transport car. The licensee's analysis demonstrated that the exposure to workers involved in this shipment option was bounded by the analysis for truck shipment. The NRC has reviewed this analysis and agreed that the analysis for shipment by truck was bounding. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the disposal of demolition debris does not affect non-radiological plant effluents. There may be a slight decrease in air quality and slight increase in noise impacts during the loading and transportation of the demolition debris. However, there are no expected adverse impacts to air quality as a result of the loading and transportation of the demolition debris. The disposal of demolition debris does not take place in the vicinity of any identified historic sites. Therefore, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. YAEC initial submittal estimates that transportation of the demolition debris will require approximately 2,000 truck shipments. There is no anticipated overall impact from the alternate disposal as the shipping effort represents a small fraction of the national commercial freight activity. The total tonnage to be shipped represents <0.0005% of the total U.S. annual commercial freight trucking activity (based on 2002 data). Similarly, the total ton-miles for the alternate disposal represents <0.0087% of the total U.S. annual commercial freight trucking activity in the same time period. Additionally, these activities will be short in duration and minimal as compared to prior transportation of uncontaminated demolition debris from the YNPS. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. 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). The implications from the no-action alternative is that the demolition debris would remain on site until disposition sometime in the future. The impacts would therefore be limited to the site, and there would be no transportation impacts and no disposal considerations or impacts until sometime in the future. Two of the alternatives to the proposed action would be to decontaminate the buildings and structures prior to demolition or final status survey. The environmental impacts as a result of this alternative would decrease air quality, and increase the noise and water usage, as necessary, during the decontamination process. Additionally, there would be an increase in occupational exposure as a result of the decontamination process. Disposing of the demolition debris in a low-level waste disposal facility is another alternative to the proposed action. This alternative has similar environmental impacts as the proposed action but is more expensive. Agencies and Persons Consulted This EA was prepared by John B. Hickman, Project Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection (DWMEP). NRC staff determined that the proposed action is not a major activity and will not affect listed or proposed endangered species, nor critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, NRC staff determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause previously unconsidered effects on historic properties, as consultation for site decommissioning has been conducted previously. There are no impacts to historic properties associated with the disposal method and location for demolition debris. Therefore, no consultation is required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NRC provided a draft of its Environmental Assessment
(EA)to the following individuals: Mr. Dave Howland, Regional Engineer, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Western Regional Office, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103, Hartford, CT 06106-5127. Mr. Michael Whalen, Radiation Control Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 90 Washington Street, Dorchester, MA 02121. Ms. Ruth McBurney, Texas Department of State Health Services, Radiation Control, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189. Ms. Susan Jablonski, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Mail Code 122, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection stated the expectation that material leaving the YNPS site for disposal at WCS will be handled and transported consistent with all applicable Massachusetts Law and Regulation. The NRC staff also expects licensees to comply with all applicable transportation laws and regulations. The Texas Department of State Health Services
(DSHS)provided several comments by letter dated March 24, 2005. In response to the DSHS comments, a statement was added to the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action section that this evaluation is for the disposal of the demolition debris at a subtitle C RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility irrespective of other materials disposed of at the facility. In addition, the Texas licensing authority over the WCS facility was clarified. DSHS also commented on the necessity of compliance with State regulatory requirements. The staff agrees with that comment and believes that the statement that, “any disposal must comply with State requirements,” adequately addresses that issue. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)provided comments by letter dated April 26, 2005. The primary focus of the TCEQ comments were on the Texas licensing requirements for the WCS facility and the authority for WCS to receive the radioactive material. This NRC action would permit Yankee to dispose of slightly contaminated demolition debris at the WCS facility, but does not authorize WCS to accept any material it is not otherwise licensed to receive under Texas licensing authority. As previously noted, “any disposal must comply with State requirements.” TCEQ also noted that only the bounding transportation option, truck shipment, was addressed in the draft EA. The EA has bee revised to address the rail shipment option as well. III. 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. Sources Used —U.S. NRC Power Reactor License: Yankee Atomic Electric Company Docket Number 050-00029, License Number DPR-03. —Yankee Atomic Electric Company, December 22, 2004, Request for Approval of Proposed Procedures in Accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 for alternate disposal at the Waste Control Specialist, LLC Facility in Andrews, Texas, (ML050110132) as supplemented on February 7, 2005. (ADAMS Accession Number ML050470301). —NRC 10 CFR 20.2002, “Method of Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures.” —NUREG-1640, “Radiological Assessment for Clearance of Materials from Nuclear Facilities.” —NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” —U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Transportation Statistics Annual Report,” September 2004. —U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Freight Shipments in America,” April 2004. —NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, November 2002. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 22, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050110132), as supplemented on February 7, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050470301). The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at
(800)397-4209. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). 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 by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-2206 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical Specification; Improvement To Modify Requirements Regarding Steam Generator Tube Integrity; Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has prepared a model application related to the revision of technical specifications
(TS)on steam generator tube integrity for pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The purpose of this model is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to revise TS for steam generator tube integrity. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the model applies may request amendments utilizing the model application. DATES: The NRC staff issued a **Federal Register** notice (70 FR 10298, March 2, 2005) that provided a model safety evaluation
(SE)and a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination relating to changing TS on steam generator tube integrity for PWRs. The NRC staff hereby announces that the model SE and NSHC determination may be referenced in plant-specific applications to adopt the changes. The staff has posted a model application on the NRC Web site to assist licensees in using the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) to revise the TS on steam generator tube integrity. The NRC staff can most efficiently consider applications based upon the model application if the application is submitted within a year of this **Federal Register** notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reckley, Mail Stop: O7D1, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1323. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The CLIIP is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes. This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to the standard TS
(STS)in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to TS are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves the revision of limiting conditions for operation and related administrative controls in TS addressing steam generator tube integrity at PWRs. This proposed change was proposed for incorporation into the STS by participants in the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-449, Revision 4. TSTF-449 can be viewed on the NRC Web site ( *http://www.nrc.gov* ). Applicability This proposed change to revise the TS on steam generator tube integrity is applicable to licensees for PWRs who have adopted or will adopt, in conjunction with the proposed change, technical specification requirements for a Bases control program consistent with the TS Bases Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the applicable vendor's STS. To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests each licensee applying for the changes addressed by TSTF-449 using the CLIIP to provide the information identified in the model application posted on the NRC Web site. Public Notices In a notice in the **Federal Register** dated March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), the staff requested comment on the use of the CLIIP to process requests to revise the TS regarding steam generator tube integrity. In addition, there have been several plant-specific amendment requests to adopt changes similar to those described in TSTF-449 and notices have been published for these applications. TSTF-449, as well as the NRC staff's safety evaluation and model application, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room). The staff received one response with comments following the notice published March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), soliciting comments on the model SE and NSHC determination related to TSTF-449, Revision 3. The comments were offered by the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)in a letter dated April 1, 2005. The NEI comments suggested clarifications and minor corrections to Revision 3 of TSTF-449 and related changes to the staff's model SE. In response to comments, the TSTF submitted Revision 4 to TSTF-449 in its letter dated April 14, 2005. The NRC staff has made only minor changes to the model SE to address editorial issues and to reflect the revision of TSTF-449. The staff finds that the previously published models remain appropriate references (as modified slightly to reflect Revision 4 of TSTF-449) and has chosen not to republish the model SE and model NSHC determination in this notice. As described in the model application prepared by the staff, licensees may reference in their plant-specific applications to adopt TSTF-449, the SE (as revised above), NSHC determination, and environmental assessment previously published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 10298; March 2, 2005). Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thomas H. Boyce, Section Chief, Technical Specifications Section, Operating Improvements Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-2208 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims; OPM Form 1673 AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. OPM Form 1673, Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims, is used to collect information from current and former Federal civilian employees who are submitting a claim for compensation and/or leave. OPM needs this information in order to adjudicate the claim. We received no comments on our 60-day notice on OPM Form 1673, published in the **Federal Register** on August 24, 2004. Approximately 40 claims are submitted annually. It takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The annual estimated burden is 40 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251, or e-mail to *mbtoomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Robert D. Hendler, Program Manager, Center for Merit Systems Compliance, Division for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Compliance Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 6484, Washington, DC 20415; and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Dan G. Blair, Acting Director. [FR Doc. 05-8977 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 2
2 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 51
- Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
Cite10 CFR 51
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources