[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63647-63649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25345]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-409; NRC-2014-0225]
Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from certain emergency planning (EP)
requirements for License No. DPR-7 held by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E, the licensee) for the possession of the Humboldt Bay
Power Plant, Unit 3. PG&E is requesting the exemptions from specific
emergency planning requirements by letter dated August 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0225 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time
that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3017, email:
[email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-00001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a
request dated August 14, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12236A327), by
PG&E requesting exemptions from specific emergency planning
requirements of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 and Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The licensee's request was prompted
by changes the NRC made to its EP regulations on November 3, 1980 by
publishing a final rule (45 FR 55402) amending the EP requirements for
production and utilization facilities. This Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed exemption has been developed in accordance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt Humboldt Bay, a 10 CFR part 50
licensee, from certain 10 CFR part 50 emergency planning (EP)
requirements because Humboldt Bay is permanently shut-down with the
fuel now stored in dry concrete and steel casks at the Humboldt Bay
ISFSI.
Need for Proposed Action
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 was issued an operating
license on August 28, 1962. On July 2, 1976, HBPP Unit 3 was shut down
for annual refueling and to conduct seismic modifications. The unit was
never restarted. In 1983, updated economic analyses indicated that
restarting Unit 3
[[Page 63648]]
would probably not be cost-effective, and in June 1983, PG&E announced
its intention to decommission the unit. On July 16, 1985, the NRC
issued Amendment No. 19 to the HBPP Unit 3 Operating License to change
the status to possess-but-not-operate (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession
No. 8507260045). In December of 2008, the transfer of spent fuel from
the fuel storage pool to the dry-cask ISFSI was completed, and the
decontamination and dismantlement phase of HBPP Unit 3 decommissioning
commenced (ADAMS Accession Number ML090440322). Active decommissioning
is currently underway.
On November 23, 2011, the NRC issued a final rule in the Federal
Register (FR) modifying or adding EP requirements in Section 50.47,
Section 50.54, and Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 (76 FR 72560). The EP
Final Rule was effective on December 23, 2011, with specific
implementation dates for each of the rule changes, varying from the
effective date of the Final Rule through December 31, 2015. The EP
Final Rule codified certain voluntary protective measures contained in
NRC Bulletin 2005-02, ``Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for
Security-Based Events,'' and generically applicable requirements
similar to those previously imposed by NRC Order EA-02-026, ``Order for
Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,'' dated February
25, 2002. In addition, the EP Final Rule amended other licensee
emergency plan requirements to: (1) Enhance the ability of licensees in
preparing and in taking certain protective actions in the event of a
radiological emergency; (2) address, in part, security issues
identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; (3)
clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation
among licensees; and (4) modify certain EP requirements to be more
effective and efficient. However, the EP Final Rule was only an
enhancement to the NRC's regulations and was not necessary for adequate
protection. On page 72563 of the Federal Register notice for the EP
Final Rule, the Commission ``determined that the existing regulatory
structure ensures adequate protection of public health and safety and
common defense and security.''
The licensee claims that the proposed action is needed because the
final rule imposed requirements on HBPP that are not necessary to meet
the underlying purpose of the regulations in view of the greatly
reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current
plant status as permanently shut down and with the spent nuclear fuel
stored in an ISFSI. The EP program at this facility met the EP
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 that were in effect before December 23,
2011, subject to any license amendments or exemptions modifying the EP
requirements for the licensee. Thus, compliance with the EP
requirements in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule
demonstrated reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures
could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed
action and concludes that exempting the facility from the emergency
planning requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts.
The NRC has determined that no credible events at the HBPP ISFSI would
result in doses to the public beyond the owner-controlled area boundary
that would exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Protective
Action Guides at the site boundary. The staff also has concluded that
the HBPP Emergency Plan, with the exemptions described in its safety
evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A210), provides for an
acceptable level of emergency preparedness at the HBPP facility in its
shutdown and defueled condition, and also provides reasonable assurance
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of
a radiological emergency at the HBPP facility. Additionally, the
proposed action will involve no construction or major renovation of any
buildings or structures, no ground disturbing activities, no alteration
to land or neither air quality, nor any effect on historic and cultural
resources. The proposed action 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 offsite, and there is
no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, there will be no
construction or renovation of buildings or structures, or any ground-
disturbing activities associated with the exemptions. In addition, the
proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and
has no other environmental impact. Finally, there will be no impact on
historic sites. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts because there will be no construction or major
renovation of any buildings or structures, nor any ground disturbing
activities associated. Thus the environmental impacts of the proposed
action and no-action alternative are similar. Therefore, the no-action
alternative is 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 contacted the California Radiologic Health Branch in the
State Department of Health Services concerning this request. There were
no comments, concerns or objections from the State official.
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 as part of its review 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. For further details with respect to the proposed
action, see the licensee's letter dated August 14, 2012.
[[Page 63649]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of October, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
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. 2014-25345 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P