Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. Stc-133, for Unrestricted Release of the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense National Stockpile Center, Hammond Depot Facility In Hammond, IN, 64762-64764 [E9-29197]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64762
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0537; Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–
270, and 50–287]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee
Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR–38, DPR–
47, and DPR–55, issued to Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for
operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station
Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Oconee
County, South Carolina, in accordance
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.90.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
changes to the Technical Specifications
(TSs) and approve changes to the
licensee’s updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) associated with the
acceptance of the new reactor protective
system and engineered safeguard
protective system (RPS/ESPS) digital
upgrade.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 31, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated, April 3, 2008, April 29,
2008, May 15, 2008, May 28, 2008,
September 30, 2008, October 7, 2008,
October 16, 2008, October 23, 2008,
October 28, 2008, November 6, 2008,
November 19, 2008, November 25, 2008,
December 22, 2008, February 27, 2009,
March 6, 2009, April 3, 2009 (2 separate
letters), April 30, 2009, June 19, 2009,
and August 10, 2009.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the licensee to replace the existing
RPS/ESPS with a new digital RPS/ESPS.
The licensee is replacing the existing
RPS/ESPS because acquiring
replacement parts has become very
difficult.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the licensee may make changes to
the TSs and update the UFSAR to allow
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 07, 2009
Jkt 220001
the removal to the existing RPS/ESPS
and replace it with a new digital RPS/
ESPS.
The details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
license amendments that will be issued
as part of the letter to the licensee
approving the license amendments.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released offsite. 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 any foreseeable
impacts to land, air, or water resources,
including impacts to biota. In addition,
there are also no known socioeconomic,
cultural, or environmental justice
impacts associated with such proposed
action. Therefore, there are no
significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action. Denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, and the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
(NUREG–1437 Supplement 2) dated
December 1999.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on November 6, 2009, the staff
consulted with the South Carolina State
official, Mr. Robert M. Gandy, of the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, regarding
the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had
no comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
January 31, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated April 3, 2008, April 29,
2008, May 15, 2008, May 28, 2008,
September 30, 2008, October 7, 2008,
October 16, 2008, October 23, 2008,
October 28, 2008, November 6, 2008,
November 19, 2008, November 25, 2008,
December 22, 2008, February 27, 2009,
March 6, 2009, April 3, 2009 (2 separate
letters), April 30, 2009, June 19, 2009,
and August 10, 2009.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
V. Sreenivas,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–29198 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0539; Docket No. 040–00341]
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment to Source Materials
License No. Stc-133, for Unrestricted
Release of the Defense Logistics
Agency, Defense National Stockpile
Center, Hammond Depot Facility In
Hammond, IN
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Notices
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health Physicist,
Commercial and R&D Branch, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I,
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania 19406; telephone (610)
337–5040; fax number (610) 337–5269;
or by e-mail: Elizabeth.Ullrich@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to
Source Materials License No. STC–133.
This license is held by the Defense
Logistics Agency, Defense National
Stockpile Center (DLA/DNSC) (the
Licensee), for its Hammond Depot (the
Facility), located at 3200 Sheffield
Avenue in Hammond, Indiana. Issuance
of the amendment would authorize
release of the Facility for unrestricted
use. The Licensee requested this action
in a letter dated February 3, 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
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
the Licensee’s February 3, 2006, license
amendment request, resulting in release
of the Facility for unrestricted use.
License No. STC–133 as issued on
February 14, 1957, pursuant to 10 CFR
Part 40, and has been amended
periodically since that time. This
license authorized the Licensee to use
natural uranium and thorium in the
form of ores, concentrations and solids
for the purpose of storage, sampling,
repackaging and transfer for the
activities of the Defense National
Stockpile.
The Hammond Depot was originally
sited on approximately 130 acres.
During the 1970’s, a large portion of the
site was sold, including Warehouse 2 in
which thorium nitrate had been stored.
Warehouse 2 was remediated and
released for unrestricted use prior to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 07, 2009
Jkt 220001
that sale. Because Warehouse 2 is
separated from the current facilities, and
because it was released for unrestricted
use in the 1970’s, Warehouse 2 is not
part of this assessment. The current
Facility is situated on 67 acres located
in an industrial/commercial area, and
consists of warehouse and outdoor
storage areas. Within the Facility, use of
licensed materials was confined to
Buildings 100W, 100E, and 200E. These
warehouse buildings each contain
approximately 4,640 square meters (m2)
of storage space, although licensed
materials were stored only in portions of
each warehouse. Some soil
contamination was identified in the
former Burn Cage area (1,050 m2) and
Ferrochrome Pile #6 (2,800 m2), as well
as five smaller areas elsewhere on the
site (10 m2, 250 m2, 10 m2, 2 m2 and 2
m2), which may have resulted from
transfer activities or from radioactive
materials that were not required to be
licensed by the Commission.
In 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed
activities and initiated a survey and
decontamination of the Facility. The
Licensee conducted surveys of the
Facility 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 at the Facility, and
seeks its unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The historical review of licensed
activities conducted at the Facility
shows that such activities involved use
of the following radionuclides with halflives greater than 120 days: natural
uranium and/or thorium in the forms of
monazite sand, thorium nitrate, sodium
sulfate, tantalum pentoxide, and
columbium tantalum minerals,
contained in fiber or steel drums. Prior
to performing the final status survey, the
Licensee conducted decontamination
activities, as necessary, in the areas of
the Facility affected by these
radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status
survey during 2006 and 2007. This
survey covered the three warehouses
(Buildings 100W, 100E, and 200E)
where licensed materials were stored as
well as 7 outdoor areas (the Burn Cage
area, the Ferrochrome Pile #6 area, and
five additional small areas) where
contaminated soil was identified. The
final status survey report was attached
to the Licensee’s letter dated April 21,
2008. The Licensee elected to
demonstrate compliance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64763
radiological criteria for unrestricted
release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402
by developing derived concentration
guideline levels (DCGLs) for its Facility.
The Licensee conducted site-specific
dose modeling using input parameters
specific to the Facility that adequately
bounded the potential dose. This
included dose modeling for two
scenarios: Building surfaces and soil.
The building surfaces dose model was
based on the warehouse worker
scenario. The soil dose model was based
on a resident farmer scenario. The
Licensee thus determined the maximum
amount of residual radioactivity on
building surfaces, equipment, materials
and soils that will satisfy the NRC
requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR
Part 20 for unrestricted release. The
NRC previously reviewed the Licensee’s
methodology and proposed DCGLs, and
concluded that the proposed DCGLs are
acceptable for use as release criteria at
the Facility. The NRC’s approval of the
Licensee’s proposed DCGLs was
published in the Federal Register on
November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67761). The
Licensee’s final status survey results are
below these DCGLs, and are thus
acceptable.
The NRC staff conducted a
confirmatory survey during 2007. None
of the confirmatory sample results
exceeded the DCGLs established for the
Facility. 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). The
staff finds 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
has identified no other radiological or
non-radiological activities in the area
that could result in cumulative
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed
release of the Facility for unrestricted
use is in compliance with 10 CFR
20.1402. Based on its review, the staff
considered the impact of the residual
radioactivity at the Facility and
concluded that the proposed action will
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
64764
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Notices
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
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 leave
things as they are by simply denying the
amendment request. This no-action
alternative is not feasible because it
conflicts with the requirement in 10
CFR 40.42(d), that decommissioning of
source material facilities be completed
and approved by the NRC after licensed
activities cease. The NRC’s analysis of
the Licensee’s final status survey data
confirmed that the Facility meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for
unrestricted release. Additionally,
denying the amendment request 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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of this EA to the
Indiana State Department of Health,
Indoor Air & Radiological Health
Division for review on October 21, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, the Indiana State
Department of Health, Indoor Air &
Radiological Health Division responded
by electronic mail. The State agreed
with the conclusions of the EA, and
otherwise had no comments.
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 07, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
Documents 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, where
available.
1. Letter dated February 3, 2006
(ML060580094) with attachments
‘‘Historical Site Assessment * * *,’’
August 2005 (ML060580605);
‘‘Radiological Scoping Survey * * *,’’
December 2005 (ML060580608);
‘‘Preliminary Site-Specific Derived
Concentration Guideline Levels * * *,’’
January 2006 (ML060580629); and
‘‘Environmental Assessment,
Disposition of Thorium Nitrate’’ October
2003 (ML060580592);
2. Letters dated July 5, 2006
(ML061870578), July 19, 2006
(ML062070231), September 19, 2006
(ML062710160) and September 29, 2006
(ML062760618);
3. Letter dated September 29, 2006,
with the Decommissioning Plan dated
September 2006 (ML062710179);
4. Letter dated January 12, 2007
(ML070160372);
5. Letter dated July 19, 2007 with the
Final Status Survey Plan dated July
2007 (ML072010230);
6. Test America Lab Sample Survey
Results received January 24, 2008
(ML080240408);
7. Letter dated April 21, 2008
[ML081200814] with the Final Status
Survey Report dated April 2008
(ML081210688);
8. NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated
NMSS Decommissioning Guidance’’;
9. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
‘‘Radiological Criteria for License
Termination’’;
10. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions’’; and
11. NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities.’’
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.resource@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 Region I, 475 Allendale Road,
King of Prussia, this 30th day of November
2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E9–29197 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act; Meeting Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
DATES: Weeks of December 7, 14, 21, 28,
2009, January 4, 11, 2010.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and closed.
Week of December 7, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Proposed Rule:
Enhancements to Emergency
Preparedness Regulations (Public
Meeting) (Contact: Lauren
˜
Quinones, 301–415–2007)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov
Week of December 14, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 14, 2009.
Week of December 21, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 21, 2009.
Week of December 28, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 28, 2009.
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64762-64764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29197]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0539; Docket No. 040-00341]
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License
No. Stc-133, for Unrestricted Release of the Defense Logistics Agency,
Defense National Stockpile Center, Hammond Depot Facility In Hammond,
IN
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 64763]]
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health
Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
19406; telephone (610) 337-5040; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-
mail: Elizabeth.Ullrich@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. STC-
133. This license is held by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense
National Stockpile Center (DLA/DNSC) (the Licensee), for its Hammond
Depot (the Facility), located at 3200 Sheffield Avenue in Hammond,
Indiana. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the
Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a
letter dated February 3, 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 February 3, 2006,
license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for
unrestricted use. License No. STC-133 as issued on February 14, 1957,
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been amended periodically since
that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use natural uranium
and thorium in the form of ores, concentrations and solids for the
purpose of storage, sampling, repackaging and transfer for the
activities of the Defense National Stockpile.
The Hammond Depot was originally sited on approximately 130 acres.
During the 1970's, a large portion of the site was sold, including
Warehouse 2 in which thorium nitrate had been stored. Warehouse 2 was
remediated and released for unrestricted use prior to that sale.
Because Warehouse 2 is separated from the current facilities, and
because it was released for unrestricted use in the 1970's, Warehouse 2
is not part of this assessment. The current Facility is situated on 67
acres located in an industrial/commercial area, and consists of
warehouse and outdoor storage areas. Within the Facility, use of
licensed materials was confined to Buildings 100W, 100E, and 200E.
These warehouse buildings each contain approximately 4,640 square
meters (m\2\) of storage space, although licensed materials were stored
only in portions of each warehouse. Some soil contamination was
identified in the former Burn Cage area (1,050 m\2\) and Ferrochrome
Pile 6 (2,800 m\2\), as well as five smaller areas elsewhere
on the site (10 m\2\, 250 m\2\, 10 m\2\, 2 m\2\ and 2 m\2\), which may
have resulted from transfer activities or from radioactive materials
that were not required to be licensed by the Commission.
In 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a
survey and decontamination of the Facility. The Licensee conducted
surveys of the Facility 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 at the
Facility, and seeks its unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the
Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following
radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: natural uranium
and/or thorium in the forms of monazite sand, thorium nitrate, sodium
sulfate, tantalum pentoxide, and columbium tantalum minerals, contained
in fiber or steel drums. Prior to performing the final status survey,
the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the
areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status survey during 2006 and 2007.
This survey covered the three warehouses (Buildings 100W, 100E, and
200E) where licensed materials were stored as well as 7 outdoor areas
(the Burn Cage area, the Ferrochrome Pile 6 area, and five
additional small areas) where contaminated soil was identified. The
final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's letter dated
April 21, 2008. 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 conducted site-specific dose modeling using input
parameters specific to the Facility that adequately bounded the
potential dose. This included dose modeling for two scenarios: Building
surfaces and soil. The building surfaces dose model was based on the
warehouse worker scenario. The soil dose model was based on a resident
farmer scenario. The Licensee thus determined the maximum amount of
residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, materials and
soils that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR
Part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC previously reviewed the
Licensee's methodology and proposed DCGLs, and concluded that the
proposed DCGLs are acceptable for use as release criteria at the
Facility. The NRC's approval of the Licensee's proposed DCGLs was
published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67761).
The Licensee's final status survey results are below these DCGLs, and
are thus acceptable.
The NRC staff conducted a confirmatory survey during 2007. None of
the confirmatory sample results exceeded the DCGLs established for the
Facility. 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).
The staff finds 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 has identified no other radiological or non-
radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its
review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity
at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will
[[Page 64764]]
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 leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment
request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it
conflicts with the requirement in 10 CFR 40.42(d), that decommissioning
of source material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC
after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's
final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally,
denying the amendment request 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 Indiana State Department of
Health, Indoor Air & Radiological Health Division for review on October
21, 2009. On November 2, 2009, the Indiana State Department of Health,
Indoor Air & Radiological Health Division responded by electronic mail.
The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no
comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA 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 Documents 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, where available.
1. Letter dated February 3, 2006 (ML060580094) with attachments
``Historical Site Assessment * * *,'' August 2005 (ML060580605);
``Radiological Scoping Survey * * *,'' December 2005 (ML060580608);
``Preliminary Site-Specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels * *
*,'' January 2006 (ML060580629); and ``Environmental Assessment,
Disposition of Thorium Nitrate'' October 2003 (ML060580592);
2. Letters dated July 5, 2006 (ML061870578), July 19, 2006
(ML062070231), September 19, 2006 (ML062710160) and September 29, 2006
(ML062760618);
3. Letter dated September 29, 2006, with the Decommissioning Plan
dated September 2006 (ML062710179);
4. Letter dated January 12, 2007 (ML070160372);
5. Letter dated July 19, 2007 with the Final Status Survey Plan
dated July 2007 (ML072010230);
6. Test America Lab Sample Survey Results received January 24, 2008
(ML080240408);
7. Letter dated April 21, 2008 [ML081200814] with the Final Status
Survey Report dated April 2008 (ML081210688);
8. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance'';
9. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination'';
10. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions''; and
11. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities.''
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.resource@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 Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, this
30th day of November 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I.
[FR Doc. E9-29197 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
