BWX Technologies, Inc.; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Proposed Issuance of an Exemption From 10 CFR 70.24 Requirements, 69234-69236 [E7-23784]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69234
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices
individual-level treatment and control
groups for future third-party study); (2)
project implementation characteristics
(also necessary for future use to identify
well-matched comparison groups) and
(3) project outputs (necessary to
measure baseline for pre- and postNSF-funding-level impacts.)
Use of the Information: This
information is required for effective
administration, communication,
program and project monitoring and
evaluation, and for measuring
attainment of NSF’s program, project
and strategic goals, as required by the
President’s Management agenda as
represented by the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART); the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (Pub. L. 109–171) which
established the Academic
Competitiveness Council (ACC), and the
NSF’s Strategic Plan. The Foundation’s
FY 2006–2011 Strategic Plan describes
four strategic outcome goals of
Discovery, Learning, Research
Infrastructure, and Stewardship. NSF’s
complete strategic plan may be found at:
https://www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf0648.
The work of the multi-agency ACC
employed a methodological framework
to determine STEM education program
effectiveness. The ACC was chaired by
the Department of Education, and other
agencies that participated included the
NSF and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). The ACC
suggested cross-agency STEM education
goals and metrics and developed a
framework or ‘‘Hierarchy of Study
Designs’’ under three scientific
categories: (1) Experimental (often
called randomized controlled trials—
RCT) (2) quasi-experimental (such as
well-matched comparison group
studies) and (3) other (such as pre- and
post-test and multiple methodologies).
Further details on the participating
agencies and the ACC’s
recommendations are available at:
https://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/
competitiveness/acc-mathscience/
index.html.
Since the EHR Generic Clearance
research is primarily used for
accountability purposes, including
responding to queries from Committees
of Visitors and other scientific experts,
a census rather than sampling design
typically is necessary. At the individual
project level, funding can be adjusted
based on individual project’s responses
to some of the surveys. Some data
collected under the EHR Clearance serve
as baseline data for separate research
and evaluation studies. The EHR
Generic Clearance may be used to clear
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
data collections for other ACC agencies,
such as NASA. In February 2007 NASA
and NSF signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to coordinate
efforts promoting STEM education, the
participation of individuals
underrepresented in STEM, and
evaluation of STEM education projects
and programs in formal and informal
settings. Additional information on the
NSF–NASA MOU can be found at:
https://education.nasa.gov/divisions/
higher/overview/F_One_Giant_Step_
STEM_Education.html.
In order to conduct program or
portfolio level evaluations, however,
both experimental and quasiexperimental evaluation research
studies on STEM education
interventions require researchers to
identify individual-level and
organizational or project-level control
and treatment groups or comparison
groups. NSF-funded contract or grantee
researchers and evaluators in part may
identify control, comparison, or
treatment groups for NSF’s E&T
portfolio using some of the descriptive
data gathered through OMB 3145–0136
to conduct well-designed, rigorous
research and portfolio evaluation
studies.
In accordance with the 2001 and 2005
OMB terms of clearance, NSF requests
separate stand-alone clearance (and
separately announces for comment in
the Federal Register) any program or
portfolio research or evaluation. Two
examples of third-party evaluations that
used EHR OMB 3145–0136 data to
inform study design are: OMB 3145–
0190 (Expired: 5/2005) Evaluation of
NSF’s Louis Stokes Alliances for
Minority Participation (LSAMP)
program conducted by the Urban
Institute and OMB No. 3145–0182
(Expired 7/2005) Evaluation of the
Initial Impacts of the Integrative
Graduate Education Research and
Traineeship (IGERT) program conducted
by Abt Associates. For more information
on these and other NSF-funded
evaluations, please see the NSF’s FY
2006 Full Performance and
Accountability Report: Appendix 4B:
Table of External Evaluations at: https://
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf0701/pdf/
19.pdf.
Respondents: Individuals or
households, not-for-profit institutions,
business or other for profit, and Federal,
State, local or tribal government.
Number of Respondents: 27,000.
Burden on the Public: The total
estimate for this collection is 60,000
annual burden hours. This figure is
based on the previous 3 years of
collecting information under this
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
clearance and anticipated collections.
The average annual reporting burden is
between .5 and 50 hours per
‘respondent’ depending on whether a
respondent is a direct participant who is
self-reporting, or representing a project
and reporting on behalf of many project
participants.
Dated: December 4, 2007.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 07–5975 Filed 12–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No.: 70–27]
BWX Technologies, Inc.;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to Proposed Issuance of an
Exemption From 10 CFR 70.24
Requirements
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment (EA)
and finding of no significant impact
(FONSI).
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy M. Snyder, Fuel Manufacturing
Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail
Stop EBB–2C40M, Washington, DC
20555–0001, telephone (301) 492–3225
and e-mail ams3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) license SNM–42 and
the provisions of 10 CFR Part 70,
Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear
Material, BWX Technologies, Inc.
(BWXT or the licensee) is authorized to
receive and possess special nuclear
material for the research, fabrication and
assembly of nuclear fuel and related
components at its facility, located in
Lynchburg, Virginia. Under this license,
BWXT is also allowed to receive,
acquire, and transfer irradiated fuel
(spent nuclear fuel) at its facility. The
NRC staff is considering the issuance of
an exemption to requirements of Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Section 70.24, under a certain
condition, for the spent nuclear fuel
storage areas at the BWXT site. If the
NRC decides to grant the exemption,
then the license will be amended to
incorporate a license condition to reflect
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices
the exemption. These actions would
then allow BWXT to implement its
proposed method to meet the January
16, 2007, NRC Order (EA–07–011)
requiring BWXT to implement
additional security measures at the
BWXT site. The licensee found that if
these measures are taken, it would not
be in full compliance with the criticality
monitoring requirements of 10 CFR
70.24. Granting this exemption would
also allow BWXT to continue to store,
in a safe configuration, spent nuclear
fuel.
The NRC has prepared an EA in
support of granting an exemption and
amending the license. Based on this EA,
the NRC has concluded that a FONSI is
appropriate and, therefore, an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is
not warranted. The NRC is also
conducting a safety review of the BWXT
request for exemption. The results of the
safety review will be documented in a
separate Safety Evaluation Report.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
By letter, dated May 2, 2007, BWXT
submitted its exemption request. On
May 14, 2007, BWXT submitted, via
email, a clarification that stated its
current Environmental Report (ER),
dated March 10, 2004, addresses the
areas where spent nuclear fuel,
previously used for research, is stored at
the site.
The documents that were evaluated in
preparing this EA included the NRC’s
EA for Renewal of License SNM–42,
dated August 2005, the current BWXT
ER for Renewal of License SNM–42,
dated March 10, 2004, and the e-mail
from BWXT (Leah Morrell, May 14,
2007) stating, with respect to this
exemption request, that the BWXT’s ER,
dated March 10, 2004, is the current ER.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Review Scope
The purpose of this EA is to assess the
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and associated license
amendment. It does not approve the
request. This EA is limited to the
proposed exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in spent
nuclear fuel storage areas, and any
cumulative impacts on existing plant
operations. The existing conditions and
operations at the BWXT facility were
evaluated, by the NRC, for
environmental impacts in an EA for the
renewal of the BWXT license. This
assessment presents the information and
analysis of the proposed actions for
determining whether issuance of a
FONSI is appropriate.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
Need for the Proposed Action
As a result of the events of September
11, 2001, the NRC has required
heightened security measures for
facilities that are authorized to possess
special nuclear material. BWXT is one
such facility. Following an evaluation,
by BWXT, of ways to meet these
required security measures, BWXT
concluded that the best method to meet
those measures would affect the current
criticality monitoring system.
Specifically, the implementation of
BWXT’s proposed method to implement
the NRC Security Order (EA–07–011)
would make the detection of a criticality
challenging for the criticality
monitoring systems located in each
spent nuclear fuel storage area when the
additional security measures imposed
by EA–07–011 are in place. The
additional security measures are not
currently in place.
The Proposed Actions
The proposed actions are: (1) The
NRC granting an exemption to the
requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in the
spent fuel storage areas during the
period of time the licensee does not
need to access the spent nuclear fuel;
and (2) the NRC issuing an amendment
to the license reflecting such an
exemption. These actions would allow
BWXT to continue to safely store spent
nuclear fuel in storage systems. This
exemption would not apply during the
short and very infrequent periods
during which access to the stored
material is required, or if BWXT no
longer has spent nuclear fuel at its
licensed site. The proposed actions are
in accordance with the licensee’s
application dated May 2, 2007.
Alternative to the Proposed Actions
The actions available to the NRC are:
1. Approve the exemption and
associated license amendment as
described; or
2. No action (i.e., deny the request
and do not amend the license—the noaction alternative.)
Affected Environment
The affected environment for the
proposed action and the alternative is
the BWXT site. The affected
environment is identical to the affected
environment assessed in the EA, dated
August 2005. A full description of the
site and its characteristics is given in the
NRC’s 2005 EA.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action and the No Action Alternative
The NRC staff has completed its
evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed action and concludes
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69235
granting the licensee an exemption to
the criticality monitoring requirements
of 10 CFR 70.24 for the spent nuclear
fuel storage system during periods when
access to the spent nuclear fuel is not
required; and would not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents
previously analyzed and would not
affect facility radiation levels or facility
radiological effluents. No changes are
being made in the types of effluents that
may be released off-site. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released off-site. 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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites because no previously
undisturbed area will be affected by the
proposed actions. The proposed action
does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents and has no other effect on the
environment. 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 and, thus,
concludes that the proposed action will
not have any significant impact to the
human environment. The proposed
action does not alter the previous
National Environmental Protection Act
findings made in approving the license
renewal.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternative to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the noaction alternative). Denial of the
exemption request would result in: (1)
No associated license amendment: and
(2) no change to current environmental
impacts, as the denial would result in
the criticality monitoring requirements
of 10 CFR 70.24 continuing to be fully
applicable. Thus, the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and the
alternative action are identical because
the present or absence of a criticality
monitor and alarm for the spent nuclear
fuel that is safety stored has no impact
on the environment.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with NUREG 1748,
‘‘Environmental Review Guidance for
Licensing Actions Associated with
NMSS Programs,’’ the NRC staff
consulted with other agencies regarding
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
69236
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices
the proposed actions. These
consultations were intended to provide
other agencies an opportunity to
comment on the proposed actions, and
to ensure that the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act were met with
respect to the proposed actions.
Commonwealth of Virginia
The staff, on October 10, 2007,
consulted with the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and
the Virginia Department of Health
(VDH). The VDEQ reviewed the draft
and agreed with NRC’s conclusion that
no significant environmental impacts
would result from this proposed action,
if implemented. The VDH had technical
questions regarding the criticality
monitoring systems.
Fish and Wildlife
The staff has determined that
consultation for Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act is not required
because the proposed action does not
involve construction or any other
change in physical environment,
therefore, will not affect listed species
or critical habitat.
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources
The staff has determined that the
proposed action does not have the
potential to effect on historic properties
because it does not involve construction
or any other change in physical
environment. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
CFR 70.24, Letter (May 2, 2007) to
Director, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Lynchburg,
Virginia: BWXT, Nuclear Products
Division (confidential)
2. NRC. NUREG 1748, Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs—Final
Report. (August 2003) Washington, DC:
NRC (ML032450279)
3. BWXT. Environmental Report for Renewal
of License SNM–42, March 10, 2004
(nonpublic)
4. BWXT. E-mail to NRC, Criticality
Exemption, dated May 14, 2007
(ML073180015)
5. NRC. Environmental Assessment Related
to the Renewal of License No. SNM–42.
Docket 70–027 (August 2005)
Washington, DC: NRC. (ML071300450)
6. NRC. E-mail to VDEQ, Pre-decisional EA,
dated October 9, 2007, (ML073180022)
7. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Pre-decisional EA,
dated October 10, 2007, (ML073180034)
8. VDH. Letter to NRC, Response to Predecisional EA, dated October 24, 2007
(ML73180017)
9. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Additional
Comments on Pre-decisional EA, dated
October 31, 2007 (ML073180027)
10. VDH. E-mail to NRC, Response to
Additional Comments on Pre-decisional
EA, dated October 31, 2007
(ML073180029)
11. VEQ. Letter to NRC, Response to Predecisional EA, dated October 17, 2007
(ML073230756)
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day
of November, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kevin M. Ramsey,
Acting Chief, Fuel Manufacturing Branch,
Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, Division
of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7–23784 Filed 12–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Conclusion
On the basis of the EA, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment and
that preparation of an EIS is not
warranted.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Federal Financial
Management.
ACTION: Comment request; final notice.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Preparers
J. Wiebe, Project Manager, All Sections
A. Snyder, Project Manager, Sections
1.0, 4.0 and 5.0.
1. BWXT. Request for Exemption from 10
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
Financial Reporting for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements: Federal
Financial Report (FFR)
AGENCY:
On the basis of this assessment, the
Commission has concluded that
environmental impacts that are
associated with the proposed action
would not be significant and the
Commission is making a finding of no
significant impact.
List of References
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
SUMMARY: The Office of Management
and Budget is consolidating and
replacing four existing financial
reporting forms (SF–269, SF–269A, SF–
272, and SF–272A) with a single Federal
Financial Report (FFR). The purpose of
the FFR is to give recipients of grants
and cooperative agreements a standard
format for reporting the financial status
of their grants and cooperative
agreements (hereby referred to
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
collectively as awards). Federal
awarding agencies developed the FFR as
part of their implementation of the
Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 106–107).
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Marguerite Pridgen, Office
of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503; telephone 202–395–7844; fax
202–395–3952; e-mail
mpridgen@omb.eop.gov. Due to
potential delays in OMB’s receipt and
processing of mail sent through the U.S.
Postal Service, we encourage
respondents to submit comments
electronically to ensure timely receipt.
We cannot guarantee that comments
mailed will be received before the
comment closing date. Please include
‘‘FFR comments’’ in the subject line of
the e-mail message; please also include
the full body of your comments in the
text of the message and as an
attachment. Include your name, title,
organization, postal address, telephone
number, and e-mail address in your
message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marguerite Pridgen at the addresses
noted above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 8, 2003, OMB announced in
the Federal Register its intent to
establish a new Federal Financial
Report (FFR) (68 FR 17097). This new
report would consolidate into a single
report the current Financial Status
Report (SF–269 and SF–269A) and the
Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF–
272 and SF–272A). This consolidation,
consistent with government-wide grant
streamlining efforts being carried out
under the Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 106–107), is intended to
streamline and simplify award-reporting
requirements. This form was an
undertaking of the interagency Post
Award Workgroup that supports the
Federal Grants Streamlining Initiative.
Additional information on the Federal
Grants Streamlining Initiative, which
focuses on implementing Public Law
106–107, was announced in the Federal
Register on September 13, 2006 (71 FR
54098). An overview of the FFR and five
other report forms being developed
under the Initiative was provided
during a webcast of the Grants Policy
Committee of the U.S. Chief Financial
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69234-69236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23784]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No.: 70-27]
BWX Technologies, Inc.; Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact Related to Proposed Issuance of an Exemption From
10 CFR 70.24 Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant
impact (FONSI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy M. Snyder, Fuel Manufacturing
Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop EBB-2C40M, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 492-
3225 and e-mail ams3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license SNM-42 and
the provisions of 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear
Material, BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT or the licensee) is authorized
to receive and possess special nuclear material for the research,
fabrication and assembly of nuclear fuel and related components at its
facility, located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Under this license, BWXT is
also allowed to receive, acquire, and transfer irradiated fuel (spent
nuclear fuel) at its facility. The NRC staff is considering the
issuance of an exemption to requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 70.24, under a certain condition,
for the spent nuclear fuel storage areas at the BWXT site. If the NRC
decides to grant the exemption, then the license will be amended to
incorporate a license condition to reflect
[[Page 69235]]
the exemption. These actions would then allow BWXT to implement its
proposed method to meet the January 16, 2007, NRC Order (EA-07-011)
requiring BWXT to implement additional security measures at the BWXT
site. The licensee found that if these measures are taken, it would not
be in full compliance with the criticality monitoring requirements of
10 CFR 70.24. Granting this exemption would also allow BWXT to continue
to store, in a safe configuration, spent nuclear fuel.
The NRC has prepared an EA in support of granting an exemption and
amending the license. Based on this EA, the NRC has concluded that a
FONSI is appropriate and, therefore, an environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not warranted. The NRC is also conducting a safety review of
the BWXT request for exemption. The results of the safety review will
be documented in a separate Safety Evaluation Report.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
By letter, dated May 2, 2007, BWXT submitted its exemption request.
On May 14, 2007, BWXT submitted, via email, a clarification that stated
its current Environmental Report (ER), dated March 10, 2004, addresses
the areas where spent nuclear fuel, previously used for research, is
stored at the site.
The documents that were evaluated in preparing this EA included the
NRC's EA for Renewal of License SNM-42, dated August 2005, the current
BWXT ER for Renewal of License SNM-42, dated March 10, 2004, and the e-
mail from BWXT (Leah Morrell, May 14, 2007) stating, with respect to
this exemption request, that the BWXT's ER, dated March 10, 2004, is
the current ER.
Review Scope
The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of
the proposed exemption and associated license amendment. It does not
approve the request. This EA is limited to the proposed exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in spent nuclear fuel storage areas,
and any cumulative impacts on existing plant operations. The existing
conditions and operations at the BWXT facility were evaluated, by the
NRC, for environmental impacts in an EA for the renewal of the BWXT
license. This assessment presents the information and analysis of the
proposed actions for determining whether issuance of a FONSI is
appropriate.
Need for the Proposed Action
As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC has
required heightened security measures for facilities that are
authorized to possess special nuclear material. BWXT is one such
facility. Following an evaluation, by BWXT, of ways to meet these
required security measures, BWXT concluded that the best method to meet
those measures would affect the current criticality monitoring system.
Specifically, the implementation of BWXT's proposed method to implement
the NRC Security Order (EA-07-011) would make the detection of a
criticality challenging for the criticality monitoring systems located
in each spent nuclear fuel storage area when the additional security
measures imposed by EA-07-011 are in place. The additional security
measures are not currently in place.
The Proposed Actions
The proposed actions are: (1) The NRC granting an exemption to the
requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in the spent fuel storage areas during the
period of time the licensee does not need to access the spent nuclear
fuel; and (2) the NRC issuing an amendment to the license reflecting
such an exemption. These actions would allow BWXT to continue to safely
store spent nuclear fuel in storage systems. This exemption would not
apply during the short and very infrequent periods during which access
to the stored material is required, or if BWXT no longer has spent
nuclear fuel at its licensed site. The proposed actions are in
accordance with the licensee's application dated May 2, 2007.
Alternative to the Proposed Actions
The actions available to the NRC are:
1. Approve the exemption and associated license amendment as
described; or
2. No action (i.e., deny the request and do not amend the license--
the no-action alternative.)
Affected Environment
The affected environment for the proposed action and the
alternative is the BWXT site. The affected environment is identical to
the affected environment assessed in the EA, dated August 2005. A full
description of the site and its characteristics is given in the NRC's
2005 EA.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action
Alternative
The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and concludes granting the licensee an
exemption to the criticality monitoring requirements of 10 CFR 70.24
for the spent nuclear fuel storage system during periods when access to
the spent nuclear fuel is not required; and would not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological
effluents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may
be released off-site. There is no significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released off-site. 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, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because
no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed
actions. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents and has no other effect on the environment. 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 and, thus,
concludes that the proposed action will not have any significant impact
to the human environment. The proposed action does not alter the
previous National Environmental Protection Act findings made in
approving the license renewal.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternative 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: (1) No associated license
amendment: and (2) no change to current environmental impacts, as the
denial would result in the criticality monitoring requirements of 10
CFR 70.24 continuing to be fully applicable. Thus, the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are identical
because the present or absence of a criticality monitor and alarm for
the spent nuclear fuel that is safety stored has no impact on the
environment.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with NUREG 1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for
Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,'' the NRC staff
consulted with other agencies regarding
[[Page 69236]]
the proposed actions. These consultations were intended to provide
other agencies an opportunity to comment on the proposed actions, and
to ensure that the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act were met
with respect to the proposed actions.
Commonwealth of Virginia
The staff, on October 10, 2007, consulted with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the Virginia Department
of Health (VDH). The VDEQ reviewed the draft and agreed with NRC's
conclusion that no significant environmental impacts would result from
this proposed action, if implemented. The VDH had technical questions
regarding the criticality monitoring systems.
Fish and Wildlife
The staff has determined that consultation for Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action does
not involve construction or any other change in physical environment,
therefore, will not affect listed species or critical habitat.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
The staff has determined that the proposed action does not have the
potential to effect on historic properties because it does not involve
construction or any other change in physical environment. Therefore, no
further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Conclusion
On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment and that preparation of an EIS is not warranted.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that
environmental impacts that are associated with the proposed action
would not be significant and the Commission is making a finding of no
significant impact.
Preparers
J. Wiebe, Project Manager, All Sections
A. Snyder, Project Manager, Sections 1.0, 4.0 and 5.0.
List of References
1. BWXT. Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 70.24, Letter (May 2,
2007) to Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lynchburg, Virginia: BWXT,
Nuclear Products Division (confidential)
2. NRC. NUREG 1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing
Actions Associated with NMSS Programs--Final Report. (August 2003)
Washington, DC: NRC (ML032450279)
3. BWXT. Environmental Report for Renewal of License SNM-42, March
10, 2004 (nonpublic)
4. BWXT. E-mail to NRC, Criticality Exemption, dated May 14, 2007
(ML073180015)
5. NRC. Environmental Assessment Related to the Renewal of License
No. SNM-42. Docket 70-027 (August 2005) Washington, DC: NRC.
(ML071300450)
6. NRC. E-mail to VDEQ, Pre-decisional EA, dated October 9, 2007,
(ML073180022)
7. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Pre-decisional EA, dated October 10, 2007,
(ML073180034)
8. VDH. Letter to NRC, Response to Pre-decisional EA, dated October
24, 2007 (ML73180017)
9. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Additional Comments on Pre-decisional EA,
dated October 31, 2007 (ML073180027)
10. VDH. E-mail to NRC, Response to Additional Comments on Pre-
decisional EA, dated October 31, 2007 (ML073180029)
11. VEQ. Letter to NRC, Response to Pre-decisional EA, dated October
17, 2007 (ML073230756)
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of November, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kevin M. Ramsey,
Acting Chief, Fuel Manufacturing Branch, Fuel Facility Licensing
Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7-23784 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
