Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Modification of Exemption From Certain U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Requirements for Special Nuclear Material for Energy Solutions LLC, Clive, UT, 36701-36705 [2010-15599]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices The operator manual action described in the proposed exemption involves ensuring recirculation flow within the plant makeup system such that it continues to operate as designed. It does not have any impact to water usage or impact plant systems that contribute to non-radiological effluent releases from the plant. Therefore, the proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of nonradiological effluents. Likewise, no changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed and no effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. For the same reasons, there are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality, nor are there impacts to historical and cultural resources. With no impact of the proposed exemption beyond the site boundary, there would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of 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 NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the application would not result in a decrease in current environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee would have to perform plant modifications and/or reroute or wrap cables to achieve compliance. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. In accordance with its stated policy, on March 29, 2010, the NRC staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Dennis Dyckman, of the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. 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 dated March 3, 2009, as supplemented on March 15, 2010 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML090630134 and ML100750093, respectively). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http:// 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 15th day of June 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Peter Bamford, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2010–15626 Filed 6–25–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Alternative Use of Resources jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Agencies and Persons Consulted The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG–0552, dated December 1972, and Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG–1437, Supplement 37), dated June 2009. VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:02 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36701 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2009–0440; Docket No. 40–8989] Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Modification of Exemption From Certain U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Requirements for Special Nuclear Material for Energy Solutions LLC, Clive, UT AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared an Environmental Assessment for the issuance of an Order as authorized by Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act that would modify an Order issued to EnergySolutions, LLC (formerly Envirocare of Utah, Inc.) on May 7, 1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.33, the NRC prepared a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this amendment, which was published for public review and comment on October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51622). The public comment period closed on November 6, 2009. NRC received 12 comments from 4 commenters. The Order responds to a request by EnergySolutions dated September 26, 2006, to amend the package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of their 2006 Order, and to add or revise other conditions. The May 7, 1999, Order exempted EnergySolutions from certain NRC regulations and permitted EnergySolutions, under specified conditions, to possess waste containing special nuclear material (SNM), in greater quantities than specified in 10 CFR Part 150 at its facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license under 10 CFR Part 70. As discussed below, the Order has been amended four times since it was issued in 1999. ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods: NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 36702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0440. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nishka Devaser, Project Manager, Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–5196; Fax number: (301) 415–5369; E-mail: Nishka.Devaser@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction EnergySolutions is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement State, to operate a disposal facility for LLW. EnergySolutions is also licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed waste, hazardous waste, and 11(e).2 byproduct material. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a fifth amendment to an Order that was initially issued to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. on May 7, 1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999). NRC previously amended the Order on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 7399; February 13, 2003), December 16, 2003 (68 FR 74986; December 29, 2003), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 44123; August 1, 2005), and May 30, 2006 (71 FR 34165; June 13, 2006). The amended Order would continue to grant EnergySolutions an exemption from the requirements for an NRC license under 10 CFR part 70. The amendment is necessary if EnergySolutions is to receive steel piping waste containing residual special nuclear material (SNM) without first obtaining a 10 CFR part 70 license. The steel piping waste will be generated by the Department of Energy as it decommissions the K–25 gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The 1999 Order exempted Envirocare (now EnergySolutions) from certain NRC regulations and permitted the company, under specified conditions, to VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:02 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 possess waste containing SNM in greater quantities than specified in 10 CFR part 150, at the Envirocare lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license under 10 CFR part 70. The 1999 Order permitted Envirocare to possess SNM below specified concentrations, without regard for the mass of the SNM in the waste. The January 2003 amendment to the Order addressed certain waste treatment processes; a change in the homogeneous contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 600 kg; clarified certain language of the Order; and removed the confirmatory testing requirements for debris waste. The December 2003 amendment to the Order: Amended Condition 1 to include criticality-based concentration limits without magnesium oxide; modified the units of the table in Condition 1 from picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to gram of SNM per gram of waste material; and revised the language of Condition 5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table in Condition 1. The July 2005 amendment to the Order: Modified the table in Condition 1 to include criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and plutonium isotopes in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed in Condition 2 (e.g., magnesium oxide); included criticalitybased limits in the table in Condition 1 for plutonium isotopes in waste with unlimited materials in Condition 2 and in waste with unlimited quantities of materials in Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g., beryllium); provided criticality-based limits for uranium-235 as a function of enrichment in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed in Condition 2 and in waste containing none of the materials listed in Condition 2; and authorized additional mixed waste treatment technologies under the Order. The May 2006 amendment made an administrative change to accommodate a change in the name of the company from Envirocare of Utah, Inc. to EnergySolutions LLC. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed action, as modified. II. Environmental Assessment (EA) Proposed Action By letters dated September 26, 2006 (ML063040029), December 4, 2006 (ML0735321280), July 16, 2007 (ML073520212), September 13, 2007 (ML073440260), and January 15, 2009 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (ML090510588), EnergySolutions requested an amendment to its 2006 Order. EnergySolutions requested an amendment of the package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of the Order, and the addition or revision of other conditions. As described in its September 2007 nuclear criticality safety evaluation, EnergySolutions requested these additional changes to the Order so that it can receive and dispose of Oak Ridge K–25 gaseous diffusion plant piping from the Department of Energy (DOE) in larger containers than would be allowable under the 2006 Order. Under the amended Order EnergySolutions would receive piping waste from the decommissioning of the K–25 facilities in gondola railcars, each containing up to 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs) of uranium-235 in the form of highly water soluble uranyl fluoride. EnergySolutions also proposed the addition of other conditions to the Order to ensure criticality safety during receipt, on-site storage, movement, emplacement, and disposal of K–25 waste. Upon consideration of EnergySolutions’ request, the NRC is considering conditions that would restrict: The areal density of highly water soluble SNM in disposal embankments at the Clive, UT site; and the amount of water that should be present during receipt, on-site storage, movement, emplacement, and disposal of K–25 waste. The amended Order would only allow EnergySolutions to receive and dispose of the plant piping and would not exempt EnergySolutions from other applicable laws. EnergySolutions or any other entity transporting the waste will have to obtain any necessary permits or authorizations at the time of transport. Site and Facility Description The EnergySolutions LLW disposal facility in Clive, UT is located 128 kilometers (80 miles) west of Salt Lake City, UT. The site is arid and receives about 20 centimeters (8 inches) of precipitation annually. A description of the site and its history is available in the Utah Division of Radiation Control safety evaluation report for the EnergySolutions license renewal.1 All low-level radioactive waste received at the Clive facility must contain radioactive constituents. The low-level radioactive waste embankment is constructed from materials native to the site or available in close proximity to the site. Due to 1 Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions (Formerly Envirocare of Utah) LLRW Disposal Facility Radioactive Material License Renewal: Safety Evaluation Report.’’ June 14, 2007. E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES requirements regarding the long-term stability of the embankment, the principal design features of the embankment do not rely upon synthetic materials to provide stability and isolation of the wastes from the environment. The principal construction materials are the naturally low-permeability clay taken from between the ground surface and the unconfined aquifer and the rock riprap and filter material taken from pits located within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the facility. The vertical minimum separation between the bottom of the disposed LLW and the historic high water table is 4 meters (13 feet).2 After a liner is constructed over a specific area of the Class A LLW disposal embankment, at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) of debris-free soil is placed on top of the liner; followed by another 30 centimeters (12 inches) of waste as a protection to the integrity of the liner.3 Both of these layers of protective soil are compacted with rubber tired equipment. Thereafter, the area is available for placement of waste containers and materials. Waste that is removed from the shipping container is typically compacted into 61 centimeter (24 inch) waste lifts. Waste that consists of debris that does not have a dimension less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) is disposed of using controlled low strength material (CLSM) in a different disposal area. Need for the Proposed Action Condition 4 of the 2006 Order limits the mass of highly water soluble SNM that may be contained in individual waste packages. For example, the 2006 Order limits the amount of highly water soluble uranium-235 in each waste package to 350 grams. Relatively small waste packages that contain highly water soluble uranium compounds in which the uranium-235 concentration limits of Condition 1 are met (e.g., 6.2 x 10¥4 grams uranium-235 per gram of waste), would normally contain small mass quantities of uranium-235, which would not exceed the 350 gram package mass limit. But EnergySolutions believes that the K–25 waste must be processed in larger quantities to be cost effective. This would be accomplished by shipping the waste in large capacity 100-ton gondola railcars, which could result in shipments that exceed the current package mass limits in Condition 4 of the 2006 Order; the concentration of residual uranyl fluoride in the K–25 piping waste in the railcars would likely remain a fraction 2 Ibid, 3 Ibid, pg 82. pg 80. VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:02 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 of the concentration limits in Condition 1 of the 2006 Order. Therefore, EnergySolutions requested an amendment to Condition 4 of the 2006 Order to allow the receipt of K–25 steel piping waste in large gondola railcars. EnergySolutions also proposed additional conditions to ensure the criticality safety of this waste during receipt, unloading, on-site storage, emplacement, and disposal of the waste. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The NRC staff considered one alternative to the proposed action. The alternative to the proposed action is denial of the request to amend the 2006 Order (no-action alternative). Affected Environment The NRC prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG–1476) for its previous licensing action at the EnergySolutions site to authorize disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material. The affected environment is discussed in detail in NUREG–1476. (ML100820353) Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative For the no-action alternative, the environmental impacts would be the same as evaluated in the Environmental Assessments that supported the issuance of original Order (64 FR 26463; May 14, 1999) and its amendments (68 FR 3281; January 23, 2003, 68 FR 59645; October 16, 2003, 70 FR 41241; July 18, 2005) In these prior EAs, the staff concluded that the issuance of the Order would have no significant adverse environmental impacts. Proposed Action For the proposed action, the environmental impacts would be similar to those described in the previous EAs noted above, with the exception of environmental impacts associated with: Receipt and unloading of 100-ton capacity gondola railcars containing K– 25 piping waste, each of which contains residual deposits of highly water soluble uranyl fluoride in quantities in excess of the limits in Condition 4 of the 2006 Order (i.e., up to 3.6 kilograms of uranium-235); and placement in disposal embankments of piping waste containing highly water soluble uranyl fluoride at areal densities of up to 1 kilogram uranium-235 per square meter. The proposed action would not significantly alter land or water usage at the Clive facility, or result in new construction. Facility effluents would remain essentially unchanged, since this action would not alter the types or PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36703 quantities of waste that EnergySolutions is currently authorized to receive and dispose of. Disposal of Class A LLW is currently licensed by the State of Utah, for which no significant changes are anticipated other than incorporation into the radioactive materials license of a revision to Condition 4 to impose an areal density limit for highly water soluble SNM, including requirements to minimize water intrusion into the waste containing highly water soluble forms of uranium during receipt, unloading, onsite storage, and waste emplacement operations. The proposed action, which allows the use of large waste packages, would result in a reduction of the use of waste packaging, which would generate less packaging waste. Also, fewer transportation consignments would be required to transport waste from Oak Ridge, TN to the Clive, UT disposal facility, which would reduce transportation-related impacts. The proposed action would also further reduce the risk of accidental nuclear criticality, and the resulting worker and public radiation doses from the proposed action by imposing an areal density limit on disposal of highly water soluble forms of uranium, which is not currently required by the 2006 Order. The proposed action would not significantly alter available disposal capacity at the Clive facility, or significantly change the performance of disposed waste. The radiation dose rates from K–25 decommissioning waste, which contains uranium and trace amounts of other radioactive material, are low compared to other forms of Class A waste, which may contain source, byproduct, and special nuclear material up to the limits allowed by the State of Utah radioactive materials license. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to significantly change worker and public doses resulting from waste operations. Preferred Alternative The staff concluded in the June 2010 safety evaluation report that the proposed action provides sufficient protection of public health and safety, and the environment, and is not inimical to common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, staff’s preferred alternative is to amend the 2006 Order. Agencies and Persons Consulted Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control were consulted about this EA and had no comments. Because the proposed action is not expected to have any impact on E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 36704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices threatened or endangered species or historic resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Utah Historic Preservation Officer were not consulted. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Public Comments During a 30-day public comment period that ended November 6, 2009, 4 comment letters offered 12 comments that covered various topics concerning the exemption request. These commenters included: • Arnold L. Dalton, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc. Number ML093270217). • Judy M. Mallory-McCorvey, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc. Number ML093270218). • Christopher Thomas, Representing HEAL Utah, (ADAMS Acc. Number ML093140560). • Michael L. West, Representing Bechtel-Jacobs, (ADAMS Acc. Number ML093100207). NRC staff reviewed each of the comments received. Some of the comments were very similar to other comments; the staff has provided one response to each of these comments. The staff did not address comments that were outside the scope of the EA. Public Opposition Two commenters expressed general opposition to radioactive waste disposal in the State of Utah. Response: The NRC recognizes that some members of the public do not support radioactive waste disposal; however, these comments are beyond the scope of the EA. One commenter expressed specific concern about the possibility of health risks and unintended exposure. This commenter suggested that the waste would get ‘‘hotter and hotter,’’ and that climatic events might ‘‘scatter’’ these wastes creating an unsafe environment for the public. Response: The NRC staff considered the effects of variability in climate and weather and the effects of radioactive decay and ingrowth when assessing environmental impact and concluded under the constraints of disposal listed in the revised Order, public health and safety are preserved. One commenter suggested that the NRC should deny EnergySolutions’ request on the grounds that the requested exemption is not ‘‘in the public interest’’ as required under 10 CFR 70.17(a). Response: NRC’s mission is to protect public health and safety, and to provide for the common defense and security. NRC has established rules and procedures for licensees and license applicants to, among other things, receive, possess, use, and dispose of VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:02 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 radioactive materials and waste in a manner that protects public health and safety and security. It is in the public interest that NRC adhere to these rules and procedures. In addition, this specific action would provide for permanent disposal of the K–25 piping, rather than its storage onsite. This action would help facilitate decommissioning of the K–25 facility and eliminate worker exposures from having to monitor waste in storage. Both of these outcomes are in the public interest. Further Public Input One commenter requested that the NRC provide the public the opportunity to comment on the exact language used in the draft Order. Response: The public is encouraged to provide input during the public comment period of the EA and draft FONSI to ensure the staff has considered all alternatives and environmental impacts while drafting the Order. It is not the practice of the NRC to invite public comment on the exact text used in an Order. Inadequate Permission One commenter noted that EnergySolutions required additional permitting from the U.S. Department of Transportation to transport the waste. Response: The comment is correct; NRC’s licensing of this facility does not excuse compliance with other applicable laws. EnergySolutions or any other entity transporting the waste will have to obtain any necessary permits or authorizations at the time of transport. Reconcentration One commenter provided comments suggesting potential reconcentration of SNM under conditions not considered by either the EA or EnergySolutions’ Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation. Response: The NRC staff considered various aspects of material mobility over time and considered various conditions under which reconcentration might take place. See pages 6 and 7 of the SER (ADAMS Acc. Number ML090750109). The NRC acknowledges that reconcentration is possible and has accounted for this by requiring areal density limits within the disposal embankments. Technical Evaluation One comment requested that EnergySolutions’ Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation be independently evaluated, and that the evaluation be made available to the public. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Response: The EA and Order are an independent evaluation of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation. Scope of Proposed Action One comment suggested that the NRC’s NEPA analysis did not consider a sufficient number of alternatives to the proposed action. The commenter suggested that the NRC consider the decontamination of the material prior to shipment as another alternative. Response: Since the waste generator and current owner are the DOE, NRC’s alternatives are then only to allow or not allow the receipt and disposal of these wastes by EnergySolutions. Alternatives considered must be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the requested action; imposing decontamination requirements on waste generators (DOE) is outside the scope of the requested action. 10 CFR Part 70 License One comment suggested that the NRC require EnergySolutions to apply for a 10 CFR part 70 license instead of amending the Order. Response: NRC cannot require EnergySolutions to apply for a license. Section 70.17(a) allows the Commission to grant an exemption from the requirements in part 70 in response to an application from any interested person. In this case, EnergySolutions submitted an application for an exemption, which the NRC staff reviewed. The NRC staff has concluded that the Commission should grant the exemption because it is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is in the public interest. III. Conclusion The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that amending the 2006 Order will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. As required by 10 CFR 70.17, the NRC also concludes that the proposed action to grant a modification to EnergySolutions’ exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 70 is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. On this basis of this EA, NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts and that the issuance of a modified Order does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the NRC has determined E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IV. Further Information [Docket No. 50–326; Facility Operating License No. R–116; NRC–2010–0217] Documents related to this action, including the letter requesting the amendment and supporting documentation will be available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://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 ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: 1. September 29, 2006, authorization request (ML063040029); 2. July 16, 2007, letter response to request for additional information (ML073520212); and 3. September 13, 2007, letter response to request for additional information (ML073440260). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 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 Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 2010. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. 2010–15599 Filed 6–25–10; 8:45 am] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:02 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 Regents of the University of California; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing and Opportunity for Hearing on the Application Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License for An Additional 20-Year Period for University of California Irvine Nuclear Reactor Facility and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Safeguards Information and Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of acceptance for docketing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linh Tran, Senior Project Manager, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415–4103; fax number: (301) 415–1032; e-mail: Linh.Tran@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R–116 (‘‘Application’’), which currently authorizes the Regents of the University of California (the licensee) to operate the University of California Irvine Nuclear Reactor Facility (UCINRF) at a maximum steady-state thermal power of 250 kilowatts (kW) thermal power. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate the UCINRF up to a steady-state thermal power of 250 kW for an additional 20-years from the date of issuance. On October 18, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated October 23, 1999, and January 27, 2010, the NRC received an application from the licensee filed pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.51(a), to renew Facility Operating License No. R–116 for the UCINRF. The application contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI). Based on its initial review of the application and the supplemental information, the Commission’s staff determined that the licensee submitted sufficient information in accordance PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36705 with 10 CFR 50.33 and 10 CFR 50.34 so that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current Docket No. 50– 326 for Facility Operating License No. R–116 will be retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not preclude requests for additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the license, the Commission will make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing or Petition To Intervene Within 60 days of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected may file a request for hearing/petition to intervene. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner/requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 123 (Monday, June 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36701-36705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15599]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0440; Docket No. 40-8989]


Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for Modification of Exemption From Certain U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Requirements for Special 
Nuclear Material for Energy Solutions LLC, Clive, UT

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant 
Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment for the issuance of an Order as authorized by 
Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act that would modify an Order issued 
to EnergySolutions, LLC (formerly Envirocare of Utah, Inc.) on May 7, 
1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.33, the 
NRC prepared a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this 
amendment, which was published for public review and comment on October 
7, 2009 (74 FR 51622). The public comment period closed on November 6, 
2009. NRC received 12 comments from 4 commenters. The Order responds to 
a request by EnergySolutions dated September 26, 2006, to amend the 
package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of their 2006 Order, and 
to add or revise other conditions. The May 7, 1999, Order exempted 
EnergySolutions from certain NRC regulations and permitted 
EnergySolutions, under specified conditions, to possess waste 
containing special nuclear material (SNM), in greater quantities than 
specified in 10 CFR Part 150 at its facility located in Clive, Utah, 
without obtaining an NRC license under 10 CFR Part 70. As discussed 
below, the Order has been amended four times since it was issued in 
1999.

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this 
notice using the following methods:
    NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have 
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public 
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
available

[[Page 36702]]

electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain 
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2009-0440.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nishka Devaser, Project Manager, 
Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-5196; 
Fax number: (301) 415-5369; E-mail: Nishka.Devaser@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    EnergySolutions is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement 
State, to operate a disposal facility for LLW. EnergySolutions is also 
licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed waste, hazardous waste, and 
11(e).2 byproduct material.
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of a fifth amendment to an Order that was initially issued to 
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. on May 7, 1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999). 
NRC previously amended the Order on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 7399; 
February 13, 2003), December 16, 2003 (68 FR 74986; December 29, 2003), 
July 22, 2005 (70 FR 44123; August 1, 2005), and May 30, 2006 (71 FR 
34165; June 13, 2006). The amended Order would continue to grant 
EnergySolutions an exemption from the requirements for an NRC license 
under 10 CFR part 70. The amendment is necessary if EnergySolutions is 
to receive steel piping waste containing residual special nuclear 
material (SNM) without first obtaining a 10 CFR part 70 license. The 
steel piping waste will be generated by the Department of Energy as it 
decommissions the K-25 gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    The 1999 Order exempted Envirocare (now EnergySolutions) from 
certain NRC regulations and permitted the company, under specified 
conditions, to possess waste containing SNM in greater quantities than 
specified in 10 CFR part 150, at the Envirocare low-level waste (LLW) 
disposal facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC 
license under 10 CFR part 70. The 1999 Order permitted Envirocare to 
possess SNM below specified concentrations, without regard for the mass 
of the SNM in the waste. The January 2003 amendment to the Order 
addressed certain waste treatment processes; a change in the 
homogeneous contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 600 kg; clarified 
certain language of the Order; and removed the confirmatory testing 
requirements for debris waste. The December 2003 amendment to the 
Order: Amended Condition 1 to include criticality-based concentration 
limits without magnesium oxide; modified the units of the table in 
Condition 1 from picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to gram 
of SNM per gram of waste material; and revised the language of 
Condition 5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table in 
Condition 1. The July 2005 amendment to the Order: Modified the table 
in Condition 1 to include criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and 
plutonium isotopes in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials 
listed in Condition 2 (e.g., magnesium oxide); included criticality-
based limits in the table in Condition 1 for plutonium isotopes in 
waste with unlimited materials in Condition 2 and in waste with 
unlimited quantities of materials in Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g., 
beryllium); provided criticality-based limits for uranium-235 as a 
function of enrichment in waste containing up to 20 percent of 
materials listed in Condition 2 and in waste containing none of the 
materials listed in Condition 2; and authorized additional mixed waste 
treatment technologies under the Order. The May 2006 amendment made an 
administrative change to accommodate a change in the name of the 
company from Envirocare of Utah, Inc. to EnergySolutions LLC.
    The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance 
with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has 
concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 
appropriate for the proposed action, as modified.

II. Environmental Assessment (EA)

Proposed Action

    By letters dated September 26, 2006 (ML063040029), December 4, 2006 
(ML0735321280), July 16, 2007 (ML073520212), September 13, 2007 
(ML073440260), and January 15, 2009 (ML090510588), EnergySolutions 
requested an amendment to its 2006 Order. EnergySolutions requested an 
amendment of the package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of the 
Order, and the addition or revision of other conditions. As described 
in its September 2007 nuclear criticality safety evaluation, 
EnergySolutions requested these additional changes to the Order so that 
it can receive and dispose of Oak Ridge K-25 gaseous diffusion plant 
piping from the Department of Energy (DOE) in larger containers than 
would be allowable under the 2006 Order. Under the amended Order 
EnergySolutions would receive piping waste from the decommissioning of 
the K-25 facilities in gondola railcars, each containing up to 3.6 kg 
(7.9 lbs) of uranium-235 in the form of highly water soluble uranyl 
fluoride. EnergySolutions also proposed the addition of other 
conditions to the Order to ensure criticality safety during receipt, 
on-site storage, movement, emplacement, and disposal of K-25 waste. 
Upon consideration of EnergySolutions' request, the NRC is considering 
conditions that would restrict: The areal density of highly water 
soluble SNM in disposal embankments at the Clive, UT site; and the 
amount of water that should be present during receipt, on-site storage, 
movement, emplacement, and disposal of K-25 waste. The amended Order 
would only allow EnergySolutions to receive and dispose of the plant 
piping and would not exempt EnergySolutions from other applicable laws. 
EnergySolutions or any other entity transporting the waste will have to 
obtain any necessary permits or authorizations at the time of 
transport.

Site and Facility Description

    The EnergySolutions LLW disposal facility in Clive, UT is located 
128 kilometers (80 miles) west of Salt Lake City, UT. The site is arid 
and receives about 20 centimeters (8 inches) of precipitation annually. 
A description of the site and its history is available in the Utah 
Division of Radiation Control safety evaluation report for the 
EnergySolutions license renewal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions 
(Formerly Envirocare of Utah) LLRW Disposal Facility Radioactive 
Material License Renewal: Safety Evaluation Report.'' June 14, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All low-level radioactive waste received at the Clive facility must 
contain radioactive constituents. The low-level radioactive waste 
embankment is constructed from materials native to the site or 
available in close proximity to the site. Due to

[[Page 36703]]

requirements regarding the long-term stability of the embankment, the 
principal design features of the embankment do not rely upon synthetic 
materials to provide stability and isolation of the wastes from the 
environment. The principal construction materials are the naturally 
low-permeability clay taken from between the ground surface and the 
unconfined aquifer and the rock riprap and filter material taken from 
pits located within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the facility. The 
vertical minimum separation between the bottom of the disposed LLW and 
the historic high water table is 4 meters (13 feet).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ibid, pg 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a liner is constructed over a specific area of the Class A 
LLW disposal embankment, at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) of debris-
free soil is placed on top of the liner; followed by another 30 
centimeters (12 inches) of waste as a protection to the integrity of 
the liner.\3\ Both of these layers of protective soil are compacted 
with rubber tired equipment. Thereafter, the area is available for 
placement of waste containers and materials. Waste that is removed from 
the shipping container is typically compacted into 61 centimeter (24 
inch) waste lifts. Waste that consists of debris that does not have a 
dimension less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) is disposed of using 
controlled low strength material (CLSM) in a different disposal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ibid, pg 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for the Proposed Action

    Condition 4 of the 2006 Order limits the mass of highly water 
soluble SNM that may be contained in individual waste packages. For 
example, the 2006 Order limits the amount of highly water soluble 
uranium-235 in each waste package to 350 grams. Relatively small waste 
packages that contain highly water soluble uranium compounds in which 
the uranium-235 concentration limits of Condition 1 are met (e.g., 6.2 
x 10-4 grams uranium-235 per gram of waste), would normally 
contain small mass quantities of uranium-235, which would not exceed 
the 350 gram package mass limit. But EnergySolutions believes that the 
K-25 waste must be processed in larger quantities to be cost effective. 
This would be accomplished by shipping the waste in large capacity 100-
ton gondola railcars, which could result in shipments that exceed the 
current package mass limits in Condition 4 of the 2006 Order; the 
concentration of residual uranyl fluoride in the K-25 piping waste in 
the railcars would likely remain a fraction of the concentration limits 
in Condition 1 of the 2006 Order. Therefore, EnergySolutions requested 
an amendment to Condition 4 of the 2006 Order to allow the receipt of 
K-25 steel piping waste in large gondola railcars. EnergySolutions also 
proposed additional conditions to ensure the criticality safety of this 
waste during receipt, unloading, on-site storage, emplacement, and 
disposal of the waste.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff considered one alternative to the proposed action. 
The alternative to the proposed action is denial of the request to 
amend the 2006 Order (no-action alternative).

Affected Environment

    The NRC prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG-
1476) for its previous licensing action at the EnergySolutions site to 
authorize disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material. The affected 
environment is discussed in detail in NUREG-1476. (ML100820353)

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

No Action Alternative
    For the no-action alternative, the environmental impacts would be 
the same as evaluated in the Environmental Assessments that supported 
the issuance of original Order (64 FR 26463; May 14, 1999) and its 
amendments (68 FR 3281; January 23, 2003, 68 FR 59645; October 16, 
2003, 70 FR 41241; July 18, 2005) In these prior EAs, the staff 
concluded that the issuance of the Order would have no significant 
adverse environmental impacts.
Proposed Action
    For the proposed action, the environmental impacts would be similar 
to those described in the previous EAs noted above, with the exception 
of environmental impacts associated with: Receipt and unloading of 100-
ton capacity gondola railcars containing K-25 piping waste, each of 
which contains residual deposits of highly water soluble uranyl 
fluoride in quantities in excess of the limits in Condition 4 of the 
2006 Order (i.e., up to 3.6 kilograms of uranium-235); and placement in 
disposal embankments of piping waste containing highly water soluble 
uranyl fluoride at areal densities of up to 1 kilogram uranium-235 per 
square meter.
    The proposed action would not significantly alter land or water 
usage at the Clive facility, or result in new construction. Facility 
effluents would remain essentially unchanged, since this action would 
not alter the types or quantities of waste that EnergySolutions is 
currently authorized to receive and dispose of. Disposal of Class A LLW 
is currently licensed by the State of Utah, for which no significant 
changes are anticipated other than incorporation into the radioactive 
materials license of a revision to Condition 4 to impose an areal 
density limit for highly water soluble SNM, including requirements to 
minimize water intrusion into the waste containing highly water soluble 
forms of uranium during receipt, unloading, onsite storage, and waste 
emplacement operations.
    The proposed action, which allows the use of large waste packages, 
would result in a reduction of the use of waste packaging, which would 
generate less packaging waste. Also, fewer transportation consignments 
would be required to transport waste from Oak Ridge, TN to the Clive, 
UT disposal facility, which would reduce transportation-related 
impacts. The proposed action would also further reduce the risk of 
accidental nuclear criticality, and the resulting worker and public 
radiation doses from the proposed action by imposing an areal density 
limit on disposal of highly water soluble forms of uranium, which is 
not currently required by the 2006 Order.
    The proposed action would not significantly alter available 
disposal capacity at the Clive facility, or significantly change the 
performance of disposed waste. The radiation dose rates from K-25 
decommissioning waste, which contains uranium and trace amounts of 
other radioactive material, are low compared to other forms of Class A 
waste, which may contain source, byproduct, and special nuclear 
material up to the limits allowed by the State of Utah radioactive 
materials license. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to 
significantly change worker and public doses resulting from waste 
operations.
Preferred Alternative
    The staff concluded in the June 2010 safety evaluation report that 
the proposed action provides sufficient protection of public health and 
safety, and the environment, and is not inimical to common defense and 
security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, staff's 
preferred alternative is to amend the 2006 Order.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental 
Quality, Division of Radiation Control were consulted about this EA and 
had no comments. Because the proposed action is not expected to have 
any impact on

[[Page 36704]]

threatened or endangered species or historic resources, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and State of Utah Historic Preservation Officer were 
not consulted.

Public Comments

    During a 30-day public comment period that ended November 6, 2009, 
4 comment letters offered 12 comments that covered various topics 
concerning the exemption request. These commenters included:
     Arnold L. Dalton, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc. Number 
ML093270217).
     Judy M. Mallory-McCorvey, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc. 
Number ML093270218).
     Christopher Thomas, Representing HEAL Utah, (ADAMS Acc. 
Number ML093140560).
     Michael L. West, Representing Bechtel-Jacobs, (ADAMS Acc. 
Number ML093100207).
    NRC staff reviewed each of the comments received. Some of the 
comments were very similar to other comments; the staff has provided 
one response to each of these comments. The staff did not address 
comments that were outside the scope of the EA.

Public Opposition

    Two commenters expressed general opposition to radioactive waste 
disposal in the State of Utah.
    Response: The NRC recognizes that some members of the public do not 
support radioactive waste disposal; however, these comments are beyond 
the scope of the EA.
    One commenter expressed specific concern about the possibility of 
health risks and unintended exposure. This commenter suggested that the 
waste would get ``hotter and hotter,'' and that climatic events might 
``scatter'' these wastes creating an unsafe environment for the public.
    Response: The NRC staff considered the effects of variability in 
climate and weather and the effects of radioactive decay and ingrowth 
when assessing environmental impact and concluded under the constraints 
of disposal listed in the revised Order, public health and safety are 
preserved.
    One commenter suggested that the NRC should deny EnergySolutions' 
request on the grounds that the requested exemption is not ``in the 
public interest'' as required under 10 CFR 70.17(a).
    Response: NRC's mission is to protect public health and safety, and 
to provide for the common defense and security. NRC has established 
rules and procedures for licensees and license applicants to, among 
other things, receive, possess, use, and dispose of radioactive 
materials and waste in a manner that protects public health and safety 
and security. It is in the public interest that NRC adhere to these 
rules and procedures. In addition, this specific action would provide 
for permanent disposal of the K-25 piping, rather than its storage 
onsite. This action would help facilitate decommissioning of the K-25 
facility and eliminate worker exposures from having to monitor waste in 
storage. Both of these outcomes are in the public interest.

Further Public Input

    One commenter requested that the NRC provide the public the 
opportunity to comment on the exact language used in the draft Order.
    Response: The public is encouraged to provide input during the 
public comment period of the EA and draft FONSI to ensure the staff has 
considered all alternatives and environmental impacts while drafting 
the Order. It is not the practice of the NRC to invite public comment 
on the exact text used in an Order.

Inadequate Permission

    One commenter noted that EnergySolutions required additional 
permitting from the U.S. Department of Transportation to transport the 
waste.
    Response: The comment is correct; NRC's licensing of this facility 
does not excuse compliance with other applicable laws. EnergySolutions 
or any other entity transporting the waste will have to obtain any 
necessary permits or authorizations at the time of transport.

Reconcentration

    One commenter provided comments suggesting potential 
reconcentration of SNM under conditions not considered by either the EA 
or EnergySolutions' Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation.
    Response: The NRC staff considered various aspects of material 
mobility over time and considered various conditions under which 
reconcentration might take place. See pages 6 and 7 of the SER (ADAMS 
Acc. Number ML090750109). The NRC acknowledges that reconcentration is 
possible and has accounted for this by requiring areal density limits 
within the disposal embankments.

Technical Evaluation

    One comment requested that EnergySolutions' Nuclear Criticality 
Safety Evaluation be independently evaluated, and that the evaluation 
be made available to the public.
    Response: The EA and Order are an independent evaluation of the 
Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation.

Scope of Proposed Action

    One comment suggested that the NRC's NEPA analysis did not consider 
a sufficient number of alternatives to the proposed action. The 
commenter suggested that the NRC consider the decontamination of the 
material prior to shipment as another alternative.
    Response: Since the waste generator and current owner are the DOE, 
NRC's alternatives are then only to allow or not allow the receipt and 
disposal of these wastes by EnergySolutions. Alternatives considered 
must be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the requested action; 
imposing decontamination requirements on waste generators (DOE) is 
outside the scope of the requested action.

10 CFR Part 70 License

    One comment suggested that the NRC require EnergySolutions to apply 
for a 10 CFR part 70 license instead of amending the Order.
    Response: NRC cannot require EnergySolutions to apply for a 
license. Section 70.17(a) allows the Commission to grant an exemption 
from the requirements in part 70 in response to an application from any 
interested person. In this case, EnergySolutions submitted an 
application for an exemption, which the NRC staff reviewed. The NRC 
staff has concluded that the Commission should grant the exemption 
because it is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property 
or the common defense and security and is in the public interest.

III. Conclusion

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the 
foregoing EA, the NRC finds that amending the 2006 Order will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. As required 
by 10 CFR 70.17, the NRC also concludes that the proposed action to 
grant a modification to EnergySolutions' exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 70 is authorized by law and will not 
endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is 
otherwise in the public interest. On this basis of this EA, NRC 
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts and that 
the issuance of a modified Order does not warrant the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the NRC has determined

[[Page 36705]]

that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the letter requesting 
the amendment and supporting documentation will be available 
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://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 ADAMS 
accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are:
    1. September 29, 2006, authorization request (ML063040029);
    2. July 16, 2007, letter response to request for additional 
information (ML073520212); and
    3. September 13, 2007, letter response to request for additional 
information (ML073440260).
    If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 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 Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 2010.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-15599 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P