Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 25-19852-01 For Unrestricted Release Of Building 7 of the Glaxosmithkline Biologicals-Hamilton Facility in Hamilton, MT, 27858-27859 [E7-9522]
Download as PDF
27858
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Notices
Dated: May 11, 2007.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board.1
Alex S. Karlin,
Chairman, Administrative Judge, Rockville,
Maryland.
[FR Doc. E7–9524 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030–19324]
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment to Byproduct Materials
License No. 25–19852–01 For
Unrestricted Release Of Building 7 of
the Glaxosmithkline BiologicalsHamilton Facility in Hamilton, MT
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact for license amendment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janine F. Katanic, Ph.D., Health
Physicist, Nuclear Materials Inspection
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza
Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas
76011; telephone: (817) 860–8151; fax
number: (817) 860–8188; or by e-mail:
jfk@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to
Byproduct Materials License No. 25–
19852–01. The license is held by
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals-Hamilton
(the Licensee), for its Hamilton facility
(the Facility), located at 553 Old
Corvallis Road in Hamilton, Montana.
Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of Building 7 of the
Facility for unrestricted use. The
Licensee requested this action in a letter
dated June 8, 2006. The NRC has
prepared an Environmental Assessment
1 Copies of this order were sent this date by
Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for (1)
licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C.,
and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2)
intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service
and New England Coalition of Brattleboro,
Vermont; (3) the Staff and (4) the State of New
Hampshire.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 May 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
(EA) in support of this proposed action
in accordance with the requirements of
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based
on the EA, the NRC has concluded that
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to
the proposed action. The amendment
will be issued to the Licensee following
the publication of this FONSI and EA in
the Federal Register.
determined that only routine
decontamination activities, in
accordance with their radiation safety
procedures, were required. The Licensee
was not required to submit a
decommissioning plan to the NRC. The
Licensee conducted surveys of the East
Room of Building 7 and provided
information to the NRC to demonstrate
that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of
10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
II. Environmental Assessment
telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.
It is so ordered.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities in Building 7 of the
Facility and seeks the unrestricted use
of Building 7.
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
the Licensee’s June 8, 2006, license
amendment request, resulting in the
release of Building 7 of the Facility for
unrestricted use. License No. 25–19852–
01 was issued on June 24, 1988,
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has
been amended periodically since that
time. This license authorizes the
Licensee to possess and use small
quantities of byproduct material, in both
sealed and unsealed form, for laboratory
research in immunological and
biochemical studies. Additionally, the
license authorizes the Licensee to
possess and use a self-shielded
irradiator device and to possess and use
sealed sources for the purposes of
performing instrument calibration.
The Facility is situated on 35 acres
(14 hectares) and consists of a main
building comprised of office space and
laboratories as well as several smaller
buildings used for various purposes.
The Facility is located in a mixed
residential/commercial area. The
Licensee’s June 8, 2006, license
amendment request specifically
addressed the release of Building 7 of
the Facility for unrestricted use.
Building 7 was constructed of filled
concrete block walls set on a concrete
floor, and its dimensions were 30 feet
(9.1 meters) long by 15 feet (4.6 meters)
wide and 8 feet (2.4 meters) in height.
The building had a filled concrete block
wall down the center which separated
the building into an East Room and a
West Room. Each room had a separate
entry door on the south side of the
building. Within Building 7, licensed
materials were confined to the East
Room. The East Room was an area of
approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) by 13
feet (4 meters) and had been used by the
Licensee for the storage of licensed
materials.
On May 30, 2006, the Licensee ceased
licensed activities in Building 7 and
initiated a survey and decontamination
of the East Room of Building 7. Based
on the Licensee’s historical knowledge
of the site and the conditions of the East
Room of Building 7, the Licensee
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The historical review of licensed
activities conducted at Building 7 of the
Facility shows that such activities
involved use of the following
radionuclides with half-lives greater
than 120 days: hydrogen-3, carbon-14,
and calcium-45. Prior to performing the
final status survey, the Licensee
conducted decontamination activities,
as necessary, in the areas of Building 7
affected by these radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status
survey during May-June 2006. This
survey covered the East Room of
Building 7. The final status survey
report was attached to the Licensee’s
amendment request dated June 8, 2006.
NRC regulation 10 CFR 20.1402,
Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted
Use, states in part that a site will be
considered acceptable for unrestricted
use if the residual radioactivity that is
distinguishable from background
radiation results in a total effective dose
equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems
per year (0.25 milliSeiverts per year) to
an average member of the critical group
(the group of individuals reasonably
expected to receive the greatest
exposure to residual radioactivity for
any applicable set of circumstances).
The Licensee elected to demonstrate
compliance with the radiological
criteria for unrestricted release as
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by
referencing Regulatory Guide 1.86,
Table 1, Acceptable Surface
Contamination Levels, and NUREG–
1556, Volume 11, Table S.5, Acceptable
Surface Contamination Levels. Both
tables provide a maximum
contamination limit for uncontrolled
release of facilities. Because these
values were not dose-based calculations
as required by the license termination
rule in 10 CFR Part 20, they were
compared to the screening values
documented in NUREG–1757, Volume
1, Revision 1, Consolidated NMSS
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Decommissioning Guidance, Table B.1.
NUREG–1757 provides screening values
for building surface contamination
which are equivalent to 25 millirem per
year. The surface contamination levels
as submitted by the Licensee are
significantly lower than the acceptable
screening values as documented in
NUREG–1757. Accordingly, the
Licensee’s final status survey results
were thus acceptable.
The NRC staff conducted a
confirmatory survey on August 3, 2006.
As documented in the inspection report,
none of the confirmatory survey results
revealed any radiation distinguishable
from accepted background radiation
levels.
Based on its review, the staff has
determined that the affected
environment and any environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action are bounded by the impacts
evaluated by the ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’ (NUREG–
1496) Volumes 1–3 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385).
Further, no incidents were recorded
involving spills or releases of
radioactive material in Building 7 of the
Facility. Accordingly, there were no
significant environmental impacts from
the use of radioactive material at the
Facility.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed
release of the portion of the Facility
described above for unrestricted use is
in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402.
The NRC has found no other activities
in the area that could result in
cumulative environmental impacts.
Based on its review, the staff considered
the impact of the residual radioactivity
at Building 7 of the Facility and
concluded that the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative
nature of the proposed action, its
environmental impacts are small.
Therefore, the only alternative the staff
considered is the no-action alternative,
under which the staff would simply
deny the amendment request. This noaction alternative is not feasible because
it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d),
requiring that decommissioning of
byproduct material facilities be
completed and approved by the NRC
after licensed activities cease.
Additionally, this denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 May 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 is consistent with the
NRC’s unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because
the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the
human environment, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed action is
the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of this EA to the
State of Montana Department of Public
Health and Human Services for review
on October 23, 2006. On January 8,
2007, the State of Montana Department
of Public Health and Human Services
responded by telephone and had no
comments on the draft EA.
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
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 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 for license
amendment and supporting
documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room 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 accession numbers, if
applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27859
1. Federal Register Notice, Volume
65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday,
June 13, 2000, ‘‘Use of Screening Values
to Demonstrate Compliance With The
Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination;’’
2. NRC, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities,’’ NUREG–1496, July
1997 (ML042310492, ML042320379,
and ML042330385);
3. NRC, ‘‘Consolidated NMSS
Decommissioning Guidance,’’ NUREG–
1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September
2003 (ML053260027);
4. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
‘‘Radiological Criteria for License
Termination;’’
5. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;’’
6. Poletti, Brian, GlaxoSmithKline
Biologicals—Hamilton, License
Amendment Request, June 8, 2005
(ML062920087);
7. Whitten, Jack E., Acknowledgment
of Receipt of Final Status Survey, July
14, 2006 (ML061950672);
8. NRC Inspection Report 030–19324/
06–001, August 25, 2006
(ML062370479);
9. NRC, Telephone Conversation
Record with State of Montana
Department of Public Health and
Human Services, January 8, 2007
(ML071130330); and,
10. E-mail correspondence between
Katanic, Janine F. and Poletti, Brian,
Questions Regarding June 8, 2006
Amendment Request, April 24–25, 2007
(ML071160054).
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 e-mail 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.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 8th day of
May 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
C. L. Cain,
Senior Management Analyst, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. E7–9522 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27858-27859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9522]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-19324]
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials
License No. 25-19852-01 For Unrestricted Release Of Building 7 of the
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals-Hamilton Facility in Hamilton, MT
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact for license amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine F. Katanic, Ph.D., Health
Physicist, Nuclear Materials Inspection Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611
Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011; telephone: (817)
860-8151; fax number: (817) 860-8188; or by e-mail: jfk@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 25-
19852-01. The license is held by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals-Hamilton
(the Licensee), for its Hamilton facility (the Facility), located at
553 Old Corvallis Road in Hamilton, Montana. Issuance of the amendment
would authorize release of Building 7 of the Facility for unrestricted
use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated June 8, 2006.
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of
this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on
the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The
amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of
this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register.
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's June 8, 2006,
license amendment request, resulting in the release of Building 7 of
the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 25-19852-01 was issued
on June 24, 1988, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended
periodically since that time. This license authorizes the Licensee to
possess and use small quantities of byproduct material, in both sealed
and unsealed form, for laboratory research in immunological and
biochemical studies. Additionally, the license authorizes the Licensee
to possess and use a self-shielded irradiator device and to possess and
use sealed sources for the purposes of performing instrument
calibration.
The Facility is situated on 35 acres (14 hectares) and consists of
a main building comprised of office space and laboratories as well as
several smaller buildings used for various purposes. The Facility is
located in a mixed residential/commercial area. The Licensee's June 8,
2006, license amendment request specifically addressed the release of
Building 7 of the Facility for unrestricted use. Building 7 was
constructed of filled concrete block walls set on a concrete floor, and
its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) long by 15 feet (4.6 meters)
wide and 8 feet (2.4 meters) in height. The building had a filled
concrete block wall down the center which separated the building into
an East Room and a West Room. Each room had a separate entry door on
the south side of the building. Within Building 7, licensed materials
were confined to the East Room. The East Room was an area of
approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) by 13 feet (4 meters) and had been
used by the Licensee for the storage of licensed materials.
On May 30, 2006, the Licensee ceased licensed activities in
Building 7 and initiated a survey and decontamination of the East Room
of Building 7. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site
and the conditions of the East Room of Building 7, the Licensee
determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance
with their radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was
not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee
conducted surveys of the East Room of Building 7 and provided
information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in
Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in Building
7 of the Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of Building 7.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The historical review of licensed activities conducted at Building
7 of the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the
following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days:
hydrogen-3, carbon-14, and calcium-45. Prior to performing the final
status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as
necessary, in the areas of Building 7 affected by these radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status survey during May-June 2006.
This survey covered the East Room of Building 7. The final status
survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated
June 8, 2006. NRC regulation 10 CFR 20.1402, Radiological Criteria for
Unrestricted Use, states in part that a site will be considered
acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is
distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective
dose equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems per year (0.25 milliSeiverts
per year) to an average member of the critical group (the group of
individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to
residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances). The
Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological
criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by
referencing Regulatory Guide 1.86, Table 1, Acceptable Surface
Contamination Levels, and NUREG-1556, Volume 11, Table S.5, Acceptable
Surface Contamination Levels. Both tables provide a maximum
contamination limit for uncontrolled release of facilities. Because
these values were not dose-based calculations as required by the
license termination rule in 10 CFR Part 20, they were compared to the
screening values documented in NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1,
Consolidated NMSS
[[Page 27859]]
Decommissioning Guidance, Table B.1. NUREG-1757 provides screening
values for building surface contamination which are equivalent to 25
millirem per year. The surface contamination levels as submitted by the
Licensee are significantly lower than the acceptable screening values
as documented in NUREG-1757. Accordingly, the Licensee's final status
survey results were thus acceptable.
The NRC staff conducted a confirmatory survey on August 3, 2006. As
documented in the inspection report, none of the confirmatory survey
results revealed any radiation distinguishable from accepted background
radiation levels.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected
environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities''
(NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385).
Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of
radioactive material in Building 7 of the Facility. Accordingly, there
were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive
material at the Facility.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the portion of the
Facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10
CFR 20.1402. The NRC has found no other activities in the area that
could result in cumulative environmental impacts. Based on its review,
the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at
Building 7 of the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action,
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative
the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the
staff would simply deny the amendment request. This no-action
alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d),
requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease.
Additionally, this 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 therefore similar,
and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent
with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR
20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of this EA to the State of Montana Department
of Public Health and Human Services for review on October 23, 2006. On
January 8, 2007, the State of Montana Department of Public Health and
Human Services responded by telephone and had no comments on the draft
EA.
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 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 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 for
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room 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
accession numbers, if applicable.
1. Federal Register Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated
Tuesday, June 13, 2000, ``Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate
Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination;''
2. NRC, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385);
3. NRC, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' NUREG-1757,
Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML053260027);
4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;''
5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;''
6. Poletti, Brian, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals--Hamilton, License
Amendment Request, June 8, 2005 (ML062920087);
7. Whitten, Jack E., Acknowledgment of Receipt of Final Status
Survey, July 14, 2006 (ML061950672);
8. NRC Inspection Report 030-19324/06-001, August 25, 2006
(ML062370479);
9. NRC, Telephone Conversation Record with State of Montana
Department of Public Health and Human Services, January 8, 2007
(ML071130330); and,
10. E-mail correspondence between Katanic, Janine F. and Poletti,
Brian, Questions Regarding June 8, 2006 Amendment Request, April 24-25,
2007 (ML071160054).
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 e-mail 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.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 8th day of May 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
C. L. Cain,
Senior Management Analyst, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region
IV.
[FR Doc. E7-9522 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P