Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. Sub-1382, for Termination of the License and Unrestricted Release of the Exxonmobil Refining & Supply C.O., Facility in Billings, Montana, 29552-29555 [E7-10260]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29552
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 29, 2007 / Notices
telephone (301) 286–7351; fax (301)
286–9502.
NASA Case No. GSC–15002–3:
Method And Associated Apparatus For
Capturing, Servicing, And De-Orbiting
Earth Satellites Using Robotics;
NASA Case No. GSC–15002–2:
Method And Associated Apparatus For
Capturing, Servicing, And De-Orbiting
Earth Satellites Using Robotics;
NASA Case No. GSC–15002–4:
Method And Associated Apparatus For
Capturing, Servicing, And De-Orbiting
Earth Satellites Using Robotics;
NASA Case No. GSC–15002–5:
Method And Associated Apparatus For
Capturing, Servicing, And De-Orbiting
Earth Satellites Using Robotics;
NASA Case No. GSC–14952–1:
Conformal Gripping Device.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management.
[FR Doc. E7–10168 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 07–044]
Government-Owned Inventions,
Available for Licensing
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
AGENCY:
Notice of availability of
inventions for licensing.
ACTION:
The invention listed below is
assigned to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, is the subject
of a patent application that has been
filed in the United States Patent and
Trademark office, and is available for
licensing.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
May 29, 2007.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management.
[FR Doc. E7–10169 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 07–045]
Government-Owned Inventions,
Available for Licensing
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
inventions for licensing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The inventions listed below
assigned to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, have been
filed in the United States Patent and
Trademark office, and are available for
licensing.
DATES: May 29, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel,
Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL,
Houston, TX 77058–8452; telephone
(281) 483–4871; fax (281) 483–6936.
NASA Case No. MSC–23933–1: LowImpact Mating System;
NASA Case No. MSC–24142–1: SelfDeploying Space Truss;
NASA Case No. MSC–24207–1: Heat
Rejection Sublimator;
NASA Case No. MSC–24169–1: SelfRegulating Control Of Parasitic Loads In
A Fuel Cell Power System;
NASA Case No. MSC–24106–1:
System Comprising Interchangeable
Electronic Controllers And
Corresponding Methods.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management.
[FR Doc. E7–10170 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:36 May 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 07–046]
Government-Owned Inventions,
Available for Licensing
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
inventions for licensing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The inventions listed below
assigned to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, have been
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management.
[FR Doc. E7–10171 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040–08769]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
License Amendment to Source
Materials License No. Sub-1382, for
Termination of the License and
Unrestricted Release of the
Exxonmobil Refining & Supply C.O.,
Facility in Billings, Montana
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark W. Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA
Management Office—JPL, 4800 Oak
Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180–200,
Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone (818)
354–7770.
NASA Case No. NPO–42965–1:
Optical Device, System, And Method Of
Generating High Angular Momentum
Beams;
NASA Case No. NPO–43524–1:
Accelerator System And Method Of
Accelerating Particles;
NASA Case No. DRC–006–045:
Method For Reducing The Refresh Rate
Of Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors.
filed in the United States Patent and
Trademark office, and are available for
licensing.
DATES: May 29, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda B. Blackburn, Patent Counsel,
Langley Research Center, Mail Code
141, Hampton, VA 23681–2199;
telephone (757) 864–3221; fax (757)
864–9190.
NASA Case No. LAR–17494–1:
Templated Growth Of Carbon
Nanotubes;
NASA Case No. LAR–17229–1: ThinFilm Evaporative Cooling For SidePumped Laser;
NASA Case No. LAR–17294–1:
Wireless Sensing System Using OpenCircuit, Electrically-Conductive SpiralTrace Sensor;
NASA Case No. LAR–17295–1:
Damage Detection/Locating System
Providing Thermal Protection;
NASA Case No. LAR–16874–1: Novel
Aromatic/Aliphatic Diamine Derivatives
For Advanced Compositions And
Polymers.
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel S. Browder, M.S., Health
Physicist, Nuclear Materials Licensing
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region IV, U.S. NRC, 611 Ryan
Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas
76011; telephone (817) 276–6552; fax
number (817) 860–8188; or by e-mail:
rsb3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 29, 2007 / Notices
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to NRC
Source Materials License No. SUB–
1382. This license is held by
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co., (the
Licensee) for its ExxonMobil Billings
Refinery (the Facility) located at 700
ExxonMobil Road, Billings, Montana.
Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of the Facility for
unrestricted use and termination of the
NRC license. The Licensee requested
this action by letters dated February 10
and July 6, 2006. The NRC has prepared
this 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).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would release
the Facility for unrestricted use. NRC
License No. SUB–1382 was issued on
September 9, 1980, pursuant to 10 CFR
Part 40, and has been amended
periodically since that time. This
license authorized the Licensee to use
depleted uranium (DU) catalysts in 84
furnace tubes of a F–551 Reformer
Furnace (furnace) at a hydrogen
manufacturing plant. Hydrogen carbon
gas was passed through the tubes with
the rings acting as a catalyst, to produce
hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The
Licensee used this process from 1980 to
1986.
In 1986, all of the furnace tubes were
removed and surveyed. The tubes were
replaced with a non-radioactive nickelmolybdenum catalyst. Residual
radioactivity was detected at the bottom
of some of the furnace tubes that had
previously contained the DU catalysts.
Those areas were decontaminated and a
survey was subsequently performed.
The survey results indicated that the
residual radioactivity had been reduced
to less than 83 becquerels per 100square centimeter (Bq/100 cm2). The
tubes were internally sandblasted and
returned to service.
In 2005, the Licensee replaced all of
the tubes during furnace maintenance.
During the 2005 maintenance, several
areas of the furnace were made
accessible which were normally not
accessible during operations. The
Licensee performed surveys based on
process knowledge of the system. The
highest survey readings were found in
the manifold that carried the product
from the furnace tubes to the collection
basin refractory drum. A pipe elbow
was removed from the manifold which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:45 May 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
allowed access to the manifold piping
near the removal point. Four residual
radioactivity measurements were taken
upstream of the elbow. The mean of the
measurements was 220 Bq/100 cm2
(13,200 dpm/100 cm2), with the highest
concentration measured as 645 Bq/100
cm2 (38,700 dpm/100 cm2). There was
no residual contamination that was
distinguishable from background
detected on the downstream side of the
elbow or along the interior of the
refractory drum. The elbow was
disposed of as radioactive waste and
replaced with a new elbow component.
The licensee performed 100% surveys
on the attachment points upstream of
the manifold and downstream of the
pipe elbow and did not measure any
areas with concentrations exceeding the
highest concentration observed in the
accessible area of the manifold.
Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that
the highest measured concentration
taken by the Licensee bounded the total
activity in the manifold.
Based on process knowledge of the
system and the conditions of the
Facility, 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
Facility and provided information to the
NRC to demonstrate that the furnace
component contributed less than 0.01
millisievert/year (mSv/yr) (1
millirem(mrem)/year) and therefore, the
Facility meets the criteria in Subpart E
of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted
release and for license termination. By
letters of February 10 and July 6, 2006,
the Licensee requested termination of its
NRC source materials license.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Facility and
seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility
which can be accomplished by the
termination of its NRC source materials
license.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co., is
located on a 778 acre site in Billings,
Montana. This site is primarily
considered a rural area and is bounded
by the Montana Rail Link and Interstate90 on the south side and the
Yellowstone River on the north side.
The furnace is located within the
processing area of the refinery, which is
a restricted site. Access to the area is
given by permission only, and the area
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29553
is actively monitored by security
personnel.
The Licensee elected to demonstrate
compliance with the radiological
criteria for unrestricted release as
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by
developing derived concentration
guideline levels (DCGLs) for its Facility.
The Licensee considered two sitespecific exposure scenarios and two
generic exposure scenarios as
documented in NUREG–1640,
‘‘Radiological Assessments for
Clearance of Materials from Nuclear
Facilities.’’ The exposure scenarios were
analyzed for the critical group to
demonstrate that the residual
radioactivity remaining on the furnace
components at the facility was less than
the derived concentration guideline
level (DCGL) corresponding to 0.01
mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr). The critical group
is the group of individuals reasonably
expected to receive the greatest
exposure to residual radioactivity for
any applicable set of circumstances.
The two site-specific scenarios
analyzed the potential exposure to: (1)
A worker due to continued furnace
operation and, (2) an on-site demolition
worker who uses a torch-cutter to cut
the manifold piping into shorter lengths
for disposal or recycling. The two
generic scenarios analyzed the exposure
to: (1) A resident living near an
industrial landfill and who drinks the
groundwater contaminated with landfill
leachate, and (2) workers handling and
processing steel slag for road
construction. Based on the evaluation of
all four exposure scenarios, the Licensee
concluded that the critical group was
the workers handling or processing steel
slag. Therefore, this scenario was used
as the bounding scenario. The
calculated DCGL that would result in a
dose of 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) to the
critical group of a worker handling or
processing steel slag was determined to
be 400 Bq/100 cm2 (24,000 dpm/100
cm2).
Based on surveys performed during
2005, the Licensee calculated that the
residual low-level contamination within
the furnace components remaining at
the facility, were less than the
calculated DCGL. There was one small
area (100 cm2) inside the manifold that
was contaminated at a concentration of
1.6 times the DCGL. The NRC staff
determined that the elevated
measurement still met the overall
release criteria for the facility. The NRC
reviewed the Licensee’s methodology
and proposed DCGL, and concluded
that the proposed DCGL is acceptable
for use as the release criteria at the
Facility. The NRC confirmed the
calculations, which substantiated that
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
29554
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 29, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
the dose to the public would be less
than 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE).
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 at the Facility.
Accordingly, there were no significant
environmental impacts from the use of
radioactive material at the Facility. The
NRC staff reviewed the docket file
records and the final status survey
report to identify any non-radiological
hazards that may have impacted the
environment surrounding the Facility.
No such hazards or impacts to the
environment were identified.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed
release of the Facility for unrestricted
use and the termination of the NRC
source materials license 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 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 environmental impacts of
the proposed action identified above,
impact of alternatives to the proposed
action must be considered. Alternatives
to the proposed action discussed below
are: (1) The no-action alternative, or (2)
disposal of the low-level contaminated
components at a low-level disposal
facility and replace the respective
equipment at the Licensee’s facility.
1. No-action alternative: As an
alternative to the proposed action, the
staff could leave the license in place by
simply denying the amendment request.
This no-action alternative is not feasible
because it conflicts with 10 CFR
40.42(d), requiring that
decommissioning of source 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:45 May 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
action and the no-action alternative are
therefore similar, and the no-action
alternative is accordingly not further
considered.
2. Environmental Impact of
Alternative 2: Another alternative to the
proposed action is to dispose of the lowlevel contaminated equipment at a lowlevel waste disposal facility and to
replace the affected equipment at the
Licensee’s facility. This alternative
would increase the environmental
impacts as a result of the air quality,
noise and additional work force
required during the removal and
replacement process of the affected
furnace components. There should not
be an increase in occupational exposure
because the cutting and removal of the
component was bounded by the
scenario for the proposed action, which
was less than 1 mrem/yr. The second
alternative, to dispose of the low-level
contaminated equipment at a low-level
disposal facility and replace the
respective equipment at the Licensee’s
facility, is not a cost-effective
alternative. The approval of the
proposed action is protective of the
health and safety of the public and is
consistent with as low as reasonably
achievable, and is the most costeffective alternative.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action is consistent with the
NRC’s unrestricted release criteria 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 propose
action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
NRC provided a draft of the
Environmental Assessment to Mr. Roy
Kemp of the Montana Department of
Public Health and Human Services,
Division of Quality Assurance, for
review on February 6, 2007. Mr. Kemp
declined the opportunity to comment 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of this EA, 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
that preparation of an environmental
impact statement is not warranted.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action,
including the application for
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.
1. NRC, ‘‘Radiological Assessment for
Clearance of Materials from Nuclear
Facilities,’’ NUREG–1640, Volume 1,
June 2003 (ML032250178).
2. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart K, ‘‘Waste
Disposal.’’
3. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 40, ‘‘Domestic
Licensing of Source Material.’’
4. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions.’’
5. ExxonMobil, ‘‘Radiological Survey
& Dose Modeling for Termination of
License SUB–1382’’ February 10, 2006,
(ML060520239).
6. ExxonMobil, ‘‘Justification for Free
Release of F–551 Furnace in Support of
License Termination’’ July 6, 2006,
(ML061910360).
7. Flanders, Scott D., Technical
Review of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 20.2002
Request by ExxonMobil, Refining &
Supply Company, October 6, 2006,
(ML062760642).
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 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 21st day of
May 2007.
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 29, 2007 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
D. Blair Spitzberg,
Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region IV.
[FR Doc. E7–10260 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NUREG–1556, Volume 21,
‘‘Consolidated Guidance About
Materials Licenses Program-Specific
Guidance About Possession Licenses
for Production of Radioactive Material
Using an Accelerator’’; Draft Guidance
Document for Comment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability for public
comment.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has amended its
regulations to include jurisdiction over
certain radium sources, acceleratorproduced radioactive materials, and
certain naturally occurring radioactive
material, as required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which was
signed into law on August 8, 2005. The
EPAct expanded the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 definition of byproduct material
to include these radioactive materials.
Subsequently, these radioactive
materials were placed under NRC’s
regulatory authority. NRC is revising its
regulations to provide a regulatory
framework that includes these newly
added radioactive materials. See SECY–
07–0062, ‘‘Final Rule: Requirements for
Expanded Definition of Byproduct
Material,’’ dated April 3, 2007, for
information on that rulemaking.
Two licensing guidance documents in
the NUREG–1556 series are being
revised along with these new
regulations to provide guidance related
to the new requirements: (1) NUREG–
1556, Volume 13, Revision 1,
‘‘Consolidated Guidance About
Materials Licenses—Program-Specific
Guidance About Commercial
Radiopharmacy Licenses,’’ and (2)
NUREG–1556, Volume 9, Revision 2,
‘‘Consolidated Guidance About
Materials Licenses—Program Specific
Guidance About Medical Use Licenses.’’
A new volume in the NUREG–1556
series is also being developed to address
the production of radioactive material
using an accelerator. This NUREG is
entitled, ‘‘NUREG–1556, Volume 21,
‘‘Consolidated Guidance About
Materials Licenses—Program-Specific
Guidance About Possession Licenses for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:45 May 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
Production of Radioactive Material
Using an Accelerator.’’
This notice is announcing the
availability of one of these three
licensing guidance documents for
public comment: NUREG–1556, Volume
21. NUREG–1556, Volume 13, Revision
1, and NUREG–1556, Volume 9,
Revision 2, will be available for public
comment in the near future by separate
notices in the Federal Register.
DATES: Please submit comments by June
28, 2007. Comments received after this
date will be considered if practical to do
so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure
consideration only for those comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Volume 21, ‘‘Consolidated
Guidance About Materials Licenses—
Program-Specific Guidance About
Possession Licenses for Production of
Radioactive Material Using an
Accelerator’’ is available for inspection
and copying for a fee at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), Public
File Area O–1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
NRC/ADAMS/. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the
NRC’s Agencywide Document Access
and Management System (ADAMS),
which provides text and image files of
the NRC’s public documents. The
ADAMS Accession Number for
NUREG–1556, Volume 21 is
ML071410035. If you do not have access
to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
The document will also be posted on
NRC’s public Web site at: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/ on the
‘‘Consolidated Guidance About
Materials Licenses (NUREG–1556)’’ Web
site page.
A free single copy, to the extent of
supply, may be requested by writing to
Office of the Chief Information Officer,
Reproduction and Distribution Services,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Printing and Graphics Branch,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; facsimile:
301–415–2289; e-mail:
Distribution@nrc.gov.
Please submit comments to Chief,
Rulemakings, Directives, and Editing
Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, 20555–0001. You may
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29555
also deliver comments to 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between
7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Federal
workdays, or by e-mail to:
nrcrep@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Torre Taylor, Division of
Intergovernmental Liaison and
Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–
7900, e-mail: tmt@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 8, 2005, the President
signed into law the EPAct. Among other
provisions, Section 651(e) of the EPAct
expanded the definition of byproduct
material as defined in Section 11e. of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA),
placing additional byproduct material
under the NRC’s jurisdiction, and
required the Commission to provide a
regulatory framework for licensing and
regulating these additional byproduct
materials.
Specifically, Section 651(e) of the
EPAct expanded the definition of
byproduct material by: (1) adding any
discrete source of radium-226 that is
produced, extracted, or converted after
extraction, before, on, or after the date
of enactment of the EPAct for use for a
commercial, medical, or research
activity; or any material that has been
made radioactive by use of a particle
accelerator and is produced, extracted,
or converted after extraction, before, on,
or after the date of enactment of the
EPAct for use for a commercial,
medical, or research activity (Section
11e.(3) of the AEA); and (2) adding any
discrete source of naturally occurring
radioactive material, other than source
material, that the Commission, in
consultation with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Secretary of the Department
of Energy (DOE), the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), and the head of any other
appropriate Federal agency, determines
would pose a threat similar to the threat
posed by a discrete source of radium226 to the public health and safety or
the common defense and security; and
is extracted or converted after extraction
before, on, or after the date of enactment
of the EPAct for use in a commercial,
medical, or research activity (Section
11e.(4) of the AEA).
NRC is revising its regulations to
provide a regulatory framework that
includes these newly added radioactive
materials. See SECY–07–0062, ‘‘Final
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29552-29555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040-08769]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
License Amendment to Source Materials License No. Sub-1382, for
Termination of the License and Unrestricted Release of the Exxonmobil
Refining & Supply C.O., Facility in Billings, Montana
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel S. Browder, M.S., Health
Physicist, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. NRC, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,
Arlington, Texas 76011; telephone (817) 276-6552; fax number (817) 860-
8188; or by e-mail: rsb3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 29553]]
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to NRC Source Materials License No.
SUB-1382. This license is held by ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co.,
(the Licensee) for its ExxonMobil Billings Refinery (the Facility)
located at 700 ExxonMobil Road, Billings, Montana. Issuance of the
amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use
and termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this action
by letters dated February 10 and July 6, 2006. The NRC has prepared
this 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).
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would release the Facility for unrestricted
use. NRC License No. SUB-1382 was issued on September 9, 1980, pursuant
to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been amended periodically since that time.
This license authorized the Licensee to use depleted uranium (DU)
catalysts in 84 furnace tubes of a F-551 Reformer Furnace (furnace) at
a hydrogen manufacturing plant. Hydrogen carbon gas was passed through
the tubes with the rings acting as a catalyst, to produce hydrogen and
carbon dioxide. The Licensee used this process from 1980 to 1986.
In 1986, all of the furnace tubes were removed and surveyed. The
tubes were replaced with a non-radioactive nickel-molybdenum catalyst.
Residual radioactivity was detected at the bottom of some of the
furnace tubes that had previously contained the DU catalysts. Those
areas were decontaminated and a survey was subsequently performed. The
survey results indicated that the residual radioactivity had been
reduced to less than 83 becquerels per 100-square centimeter (Bq/100
cm2). The tubes were internally sandblasted and returned to
service.
In 2005, the Licensee replaced all of the tubes during furnace
maintenance. During the 2005 maintenance, several areas of the furnace
were made accessible which were normally not accessible during
operations. The Licensee performed surveys based on process knowledge
of the system. The highest survey readings were found in the manifold
that carried the product from the furnace tubes to the collection basin
refractory drum. A pipe elbow was removed from the manifold which
allowed access to the manifold piping near the removal point. Four
residual radioactivity measurements were taken upstream of the elbow.
The mean of the measurements was 220 Bq/100 cm2 (13,200 dpm/
100 cm2), with the highest concentration measured as 645 Bq/
100 cm2 (38,700 dpm/100 cm2). There was no residual
contamination that was distinguishable from background detected on the
downstream side of the elbow or along the interior of the refractory
drum. The elbow was disposed of as radioactive waste and replaced with
a new elbow component. The licensee performed 100% surveys on the
attachment points upstream of the manifold and downstream of the pipe
elbow and did not measure any areas with concentrations exceeding the
highest concentration observed in the accessible area of the manifold.
Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the highest measured
concentration taken by the Licensee bounded the total activity in the
manifold.
Based on process knowledge of the system and the conditions of the
Facility, 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 Facility and
provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the furnace
component contributed less than 0.01 millisievert/year (mSv/yr) (1
millirem(mrem)/year) and therefore, the Facility meets the criteria in
Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release and for license
termination. By letters of February 10 and July 6, 2006, the Licensee
requested termination of its NRC source materials license.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the
Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility which can be
accomplished by the termination of its NRC source materials license.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co., is located on a 778 acre site in
Billings, Montana. This site is primarily considered a rural area and
is bounded by the Montana Rail Link and Interstate-90 on the south side
and the Yellowstone River on the north side. The furnace is located
within the processing area of the refinery, which is a restricted site.
Access to the area is given by permission only, and the area is
actively monitored by security personnel.
The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR
20.1402 by developing derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs)
for its Facility. The Licensee considered two site-specific exposure
scenarios and two generic exposure scenarios as documented in NUREG-
1640, ``Radiological Assessments for Clearance of Materials from
Nuclear Facilities.'' The exposure scenarios were analyzed for the
critical group to demonstrate that the residual radioactivity remaining
on the furnace components at the facility was less than the derived
concentration guideline level (DCGL) corresponding to 0.01 mSv/yr (1
mrem/yr). The critical group is the group of individuals reasonably
expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for
any applicable set of circumstances.
The two site-specific scenarios analyzed the potential exposure to:
(1) A worker due to continued furnace operation and, (2) an on-site
demolition worker who uses a torch-cutter to cut the manifold piping
into shorter lengths for disposal or recycling. The two generic
scenarios analyzed the exposure to: (1) A resident living near an
industrial landfill and who drinks the groundwater contaminated with
landfill leachate, and (2) workers handling and processing steel slag
for road construction. Based on the evaluation of all four exposure
scenarios, the Licensee concluded that the critical group was the
workers handling or processing steel slag. Therefore, this scenario was
used as the bounding scenario. The calculated DCGL that would result in
a dose of 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) to the critical group of a worker
handling or processing steel slag was determined to be 400 Bq/100
cm2 (24,000 dpm/100 cm2).
Based on surveys performed during 2005, the Licensee calculated
that the residual low-level contamination within the furnace components
remaining at the facility, were less than the calculated DCGL. There
was one small area (100 cm2) inside the manifold that was
contaminated at a concentration of 1.6 times the DCGL. The NRC staff
determined that the elevated measurement still met the overall release
criteria for the facility. The NRC reviewed the Licensee's methodology
and proposed DCGL, and concluded that the proposed DCGL is acceptable
for use as the release criteria at the Facility. The NRC confirmed the
calculations, which substantiated that
[[Page 29554]]
the dose to the public would be less than 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE).
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 at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no
significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material
at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the
final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards
that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No
such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for
unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC source materials
license 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 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 environmental impacts of the proposed action identified
above, impact of alternatives to the proposed action must be
considered. Alternatives to the proposed action discussed below are:
(1) The no-action alternative, or (2) disposal of the low-level
contaminated components at a low-level disposal facility and replace
the respective equipment at the Licensee's facility.
1. No-action alternative: As an alternative to the proposed action,
the staff could leave the license in place by simply denying the
amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because
it conflicts with 10 CFR 40.42(d), requiring that decommissioning of
source 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.
2. Environmental Impact of Alternative 2: Another alternative to
the proposed action is to dispose of the low-level contaminated
equipment at a low-level waste disposal facility and to replace the
affected equipment at the Licensee's facility. This alternative would
increase the environmental impacts as a result of the air quality,
noise and additional work force required during the removal and
replacement process of the affected furnace components. There should
not be an increase in occupational exposure because the cutting and
removal of the component was bounded by the scenario for the proposed
action, which was less than 1 mrem/yr. The second alternative, to
dispose of the low-level contaminated equipment at a low-level disposal
facility and replace the respective equipment at the Licensee's
facility, is not a cost-effective alternative. The approval of the
proposed action is protective of the health and safety of the public
and is consistent with as low as reasonably achievable, and is the most
cost-effective alternative.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent
with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria 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 propose action is
the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
NRC provided a draft of the Environmental Assessment to Mr. Roy
Kemp of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services,
Division of Quality Assurance, for review on February 6, 2007. Mr. Kemp
declined the opportunity to comment 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 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
On the basis of this EA, 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 that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the application for
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.
1. NRC, ``Radiological Assessment for Clearance of Materials from
Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1640, Volume 1, June 2003 (ML032250178).
2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart K,
``Waste Disposal.''
3. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, ``Domestic
Licensing of Source Material.''
4. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions.''
5. ExxonMobil, ``Radiological Survey & Dose Modeling for
Termination of License SUB-1382'' February 10, 2006, (ML060520239).
6. ExxonMobil, ``Justification for Free Release of F-551 Furnace in
Support of License Termination'' July 6, 2006, (ML061910360).
7. Flanders, Scott D., Technical Review of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 20.2002 Request by ExxonMobil, Refining &
Supply Company, October 6, 2006, (ML062760642).
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 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 21st day of May 2007.
[[Page 29555]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
D. Blair Spitzberg,
Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. E7-10260 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
